NN ms 
MMG 
SAVES 


OAM 


Pik pee FD 


LIBRARY 


BY THE AUTHOR. 


eee nee —_ 


Weekes, Robert Dodd, b. 
2 Oa BES AN 


Jehovah-—-Jesus 


| 
/ 
-. 
| 


GS ve Paps A 
at ah 


PTH the 
eee Gt: 
os s 


JEHOVAH-JESUS: 
ONENESS OF GOD: 


TRUE” TRINITY. 


‘% One God, the Father.”’—Pavut. 
‘¢ He that hath seen me, hath seen the Father.’”’—Jesus CuRIsT. 


BY 


aaa NEW YORK: 
; DODD, MEAD & CONMPAN Ys 


or vifist BRoapway. 


ROR THE“AUTHOR,. 
1876. 


| Entered ier or ording to Act ‘8 Congress in the year 1876, ee 


ROBERT D: WEEKS, we 


uh tite Office oi ‘the: Librarian of Gbagiess at Washington! & 


,* 


) ¥ =, LO 
THE LORD JESUS CHRIST, 
Yebooah-Jesus, 
MY LORD AND MY GOD. 
MY: ONLY REDEEMER AND SAVIOR, 
eile WORK IS | 
REVERENTIALLY AND LOVINGLY DEDICATED, 
WITH THE HOPE . 
THAT SOME MAY. BE LED BYES PERUSAL, AND BY THE STUDY OF 
- THE WORD OF Gop, TO WHICH THEY SHALL BE ment ike 
STIMULATED, = CLEARER’ AND“ MORE SATISFYING 


VIEWS OF HIM, AS - 


The Supreme God, 


THE ONLY BEGOTTEN SON OF GOD, 


AND 


THE SON OF MAN, 


.“ Jesus, my Shepherd, Guardian, Friend, 

~ My Prophet, Priest, and King, 

My Lord, my Life, my Way, my End, 
Accept the praise I bring.” 


> he 
PEF eS 
As 


- 


ie 


. 


td 


rhe 
Ww 
A 


PREP ACE. 


: PL RERE are, here and there, in the various re- 
eee ligious denominations, thoughtful Christians, 
-who cannot,.in view of their individual responsibility 

‘to God, accept the dictation of any man or any set ” 
of men, as to what they shall or shall not believe, — 
who are not satisfied with the “doctrine of the 
Trinity,” so-called, as generally stated and held by 
the evangelical denominations. - eu | 
They hold.implicitly and unqualifiedly. to the 
great essential truths of the Gospel: namely, —the - 
infinite excellence of the attributes and character of 
God, the righteousness and binding force of his law, - 
‘man’s sinfulness and lost condition, salvation only 
through the God-man -Jesus Christ, conversion and- 
sanctification by divine agency, a future state of re- 
wards and punishments. But as they do xof accept 
the statement of doctrine referred: to, as expressed 
in the so-called Athanasian creed, and in others of 
more modern date, they either keep silent for fear of 
being stigmatized as heretics, and subjected to eccle- 
siastical discipline as such, or take refuge from per- 
secution among those who do not requires asa 
_ condition of fellowship, unqualified assent to. creeds . 


6 oe ph SPREFAGR. 


ae the character named, — though not always at ° 
home even there. 

‘Some, who feel under obligation to aecepe this 
“doctrine”? as true and essential, because so taught 
by their ‘religious instructors, and because the. 
_ Scriptural arguments.adduced in.its favor seem plau- 
sible, live on with a vague undefined feeling that 
their Redeemer and their Sanctifier are not guzte 
equal to God: the Father — not gucte infinite. Nei- 
ther their minds nor their hearts are satisfied; but 
they see no way to become so. 

To others still, this doctrine has proved a stum- 
bling-block, preventing their acceptance of the Gos- 
pel: their religious teachers assuming and insisting, 
but not proving to their satisfaction, that it is essen-_ 
tial to Christianity ; while it seems to them to involve 
an absurdity, —to be, not a mystery above reason, 
but a dogma contrary to reason. 

SNE aid such, and all other honest seekers after, 
truth, these pages have been written. 
7 John Robinson, the pastor of the Pilgrims, held ° 
that “the Lord has still much truth to break forth 
out of his holy word.” A more modern writer, well 
known as an able and intelligent Christian minister, ! 
has well said, that “no creed has ever been framed 
'. by man, entirely exhaustive-of the contents of divine 
revelation.” ;:5Rev. J.\bL Fairehild);D.-D.,- President 
of Oberlin eS in an article on “ Open Questions 
ms Theology,” remarks as follows: ‘The doctrine 


1 Rev. Joseph A. Seiss, D. D., of Philadelphia: 
® See ‘‘ The Advance,” Chicago, Sept. 16, 1869. 


PREFACE. V4 


of the Trinity, as revealed in Scripture, needs to 
be more thoroughly examined, and re-stated. How ° 
. much of the common statement of the church came 
out. of Scripture, and how much was ‘carried 1 AS: a 
~ point not yet determined. Thé personal unity of 
God is a Bible doctrine. In what sense the Bible 
presents three personalities in the one person, is still 


- matter of inquiry.” 


In the Confession of Faith of the Presbyterian 
__-Church,! we are told that “ The infallible rule of in- 
terpretation of Scripture, is the Scripture itself; and 
therefore, when there is a question about the true 
and full sense of any Scripture, (which is not mani-» 
Pifelds but one,) it may be searched and known by. - 
. other places that speak more clearly:” that “The 
Supreme Judge, by whom all controversies of religion 
are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, 
opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and 
private spirits, are to be examined, and. in -whose 
sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the 
Holy Spirit speaking in the. Scripture.” 
Under .the*shadow of such names and such au- 
thority, and in the exercise of that Christian liberty 
~ ef which no man may deprive him, a humble stu- 
dent_of the Bible may venture to have his opinion 
of what the Scriptures teach, and to apt it, with 
the reasons therefor. 
In so doing, he thinks it proper to state, that he 
was _ brought up an “orthodox” Calvinistic Trini- 


1“ Constitution of the Presbyterian Church in the United States 
of America,” ch. I. sec. g, 10. 


8 ae ‘ eer RRR ACH 


tarian ; that his associations have been: with such: — 
for half a century; and that he has no desire to 
separate himself from fellowship with those who 


hold; as he does most unqualifiedly, to the great ° 


essential truths of the Gospel before stated. His 
present views are not obtained from the teachings of 
“heterodox ” writers or preachers ;_ but are the result, 

gradually reached, of a careful study of the word of. 
God, (he believes with a sincere desire to know the 
truth therein taught,) and of a comparison of the. 
arguments of Trinitarian writers with its teachings. 

- These views were adopted, for substance, several 
years since; and the continued study- of the Scrip- 
‘tures, and me: the writings of Trinitarian authors, 
upon the history of Christian doctrines and upon 
the questions: herein treated, has sérved, not to 
weaken, but to confirm the convictions of the author, 
as to their correctness-. 

The reader is invited, as his duty and. his privi- 
lege, to ‘search the Scriptures,” * to resort for truth 
-“ tothe law and to the testimony ;’” being assured that 
if men, however learned or however exalted, “speak 
not according to this word, it is because there is no 
light in them:” he is invited to “ prove all things 
by the word of God, and to “hold fast that which is 
good” and true, and consistent therewith, even if it 
does not altogether agree with the teachings of those 
he has learned to esteem as wise and good.. | vig 

It. is right and proper to respect the ‘opinions of | 
the wise and good; but to accept their views without 


1 John vy. 39. 2 Isaiah viii. 20. aq Thess. ve2t. 


o9y3 ae 


_ PREFACE, 7 9 


examination, is to assume that-they have attained to 
perfection in knowledge, —that they are omniscient. 
“Those things which are revealed belong unto ws,” to - 
all of Us, not to our religious teachers alone: “ Every 
one of us shall give account of Azmself to God:”’? 
we are all commanded to “search the Scriptures”’ for 
ourselves : — and. therefore, while we should give due 
weight to the statements and arguments of others, 
“we have no right to accept their religious ingenvce’ 
tions without thoroughly testing them by the word of 
God. “And just so far-as any man zs wise and good, 
he will wish to have his teachings thoroughly exam- 
‘ined; he will be willing to be convinced that they 
are erroneous, if they are so; and he will gladly wel= 


*. come the truth, at the expense of his prejudices. 


-It is no pleasure to the writer to-differ so widely 
from: many whom he esteems, and whase ability and 
general knowledge may far exceed his own; but, — 
to use the words of another, on another aeerton 
— Truth is greater than all men, and must be pur- 
sued and maintained at all hazards. If it can be 
shown that we have not the truth, we are ready to 
retract. But: until convinced by such arguments as 
ought to influence and control the conscience and 
belief of men, we are bound, before. Him to whom 
all are alike accountable, to assert and maintain” the 
views of truth herein set forth. 

God never intended that any man, or any set of 
“men, or any generation of men;—in this world, — 
should attain to a knowledge of a// the truth, on any 


| Deut. xxix. 29. - ~ 2 Rom. xiv. 12. 


TO:t5 2 Pe PREPACE 


subject. Created mind is progressive in its ability to - 
comprehend truth, and in the degree of its attain- 
ment of the knowledge of truth. It is so-with the 
individual : it is so with the race: it will be so to all 
eternity. Eternal investigation of truth, and eternal 
advancement in knowledge, will be among the chief 
employments and chief delights of the heavenly state. 
And it is the indispensable duty of each one of us, 
while in this life, not to rest satisfied with our pres- 
ent attainments, or with those of others, but to im- 
prove all the means within our reach, of gaining 
knowledge of God, his word, his works, ‘and his 
ways. , : Noes 

Let. those who would cry “heresy,” “ specula- 
tion,” “‘wise‘above what is written,” and the like, 
when a new view of truth is presented, remember 
‘that ridicule is not. argument, that calling*names con- 
‘vinces no one, that calling Paul a heretic did not 
prove him to bé such.’. Let them take heed that 
they judge not harshly the Lord’s servants, remem- 
bering that to his‘own Master each one standeth or . 
falleth. | econ reg 
The writer does not claim to have treated his 
subject exhaustively. He has not attempted to quote 
or refer to all the passages of Scripture that might 
be adduced in support of his positions: his aim has 
been to furnish evidence sufficient to convince the 
candid mind that his views are substantially in 
accordance with the clear and positive statements 
and general tenor of the word of God, and to 


1 Acts xxiv. 14. 


LREPACE II 


notice the leading objections and counter-arguments 
that may be urged. It is hoped that hereafter some 
one of more ability and better facilities will treat the 
subject more fully. : 

Whenever the language of the texts as quoted, 
_ differs from that of our ordinary English Bible, such 
difference is based on good authority, and is believed 
to be the correct translation. 

A few passages which the reader familiar with 
the English New Testament would naturally expect 
to find adduced in support of some of the positions 
‘taken, have not been so used, for the reason that a 
comparison with the readings of the three most 
celebrated Greek manuscripts—the Sinaitic, the 
Vatican, and the Alexandrian,—as given by Tis- 
chendorf, seems to warrant their omission. The 
more important of these are given in an Appendix. 

May the careful and prayerful study of this im- 
portant subject, bring to the reader, as the author 
trusts it has done to him, a more exalted view Ores 
the Lord Jesus Christ’ his Savior, in his entire na- 


ture, as God, Son of’ God, and Son of man;— and re- ~~ 


sult ina hier and better intellectual, spiritual, and 
experimental knowledge of “God our Father and 
the Lord Jesus Christ.” 


Aa We 
Newark, N. J» 1876, 


CONTENTS. 


PREFACE...... EO NT aan a IAL Myre ane Cy omens AN 5 


I—WHAT Is Gop...... NAG Panos siwic tech e ngiertersisielatat on E gi 
One, Indivisible, Undivided—Bible, how to interpret. 


II.—OnE Gop, ONLY......6... ey a hone Ee A eG Ae 


Old Testament proof—New Testament proof—no plurality 
" —various names—no ‘* God the Son.” 


_UI.—Tue Lorp Jzsus CHRIST. 07.0 Tid seu ct etd oad een ne eer 


"No eternal sonship—God and man. 


IV.—Jesvs Curisr 1s MAN ee ie eS b7 


Human parentage—mental and moral constitution—subjec- 
tion to parents—dependence on God—subject of temptation 
—recipient of divine influence—mediatorship. 


V.— Jesus Cugist 48 Gop... 6.25.0. tance ae os Anteemeewe | 


Not proved by preéxistence and superhumanity—* Lord ” 
not necessarily *‘ God”’—Old Testament proof—New Tes- 
tament proof—his own claims—omnipresence—-omnipotence 
—omniscience—equality. with ‘God—judgeship—miracles in 
his own name—forgiveness of sins—source of spiritual bless- 


ings—object of faith 2nd obedience—source of eternal life— 


“14 Se CON LEN TS: 


: PAGE 
‘object of worship ;—either God, an ignoramus, or an impos- 


tor ;—testimony of others—divine titles—immutability—di- 
vine power and authority—creation—divine knowledge— 
conferring miraculous gifts—object of worship—equality 
with God—belief of early church. : 


VI.—Jesus Curist not “Gop THE SON”.........-- eee 49 


Title not in Bible—he recognized no deity but the Father— - 
identity with the Father—New Testament writers give same 


testimony—the one undivided God. 


VII.—THE Son oF GoD...... Poke: ERNE Beers ae ered 364. ABO 


Sonship not eternal—the first created being—the instrument - 
of creation—the ‘t Angel Jehovah ’’—the A rchangel—Jeho- 


vah-Jesus—no Trinity—Duality ? 


VIL The Hoi Sriait f.o.. Re DA eA ey gee . 72 


Not a ‘‘ third person’’—a divine person—spiritual influence 


—Holy Spirit sent—the one infinite God. 


IX.—TRINITY OMITTED.:...: Heros vot ties eee ete g COR 
Texts—why. 
jk ERINITY (EXCLUDED 6 foc. iss oe oe SEM re er Sajencaren (HCO 


Texts—mystery not ‘“‘ mystery of the Trinity ’—God even 
the Father—prayer to the Father only—Trinity not in Bible. 


XI.—WORKS OF THE SPIRIT ASCRIBED TO THE FATHER AND 
EO MOSER IST sg fee real bd EN Ow hee Oa eee SE OBOO 


Inspiration and revelation— conversion — sanctification— 


Comforter—indwelling—Christ’s parentage and mission. 


XII—TENDENCY OF TRINITARIANISM ......ccececceceeeees 108 


Undeifies God—confuses pray er—inconsistency. 


CONTENTS. gee. 


PAGE 


Sr SUNTAN Pe gece ale tO deen AG hs) re 


One divine person only—more PES te Lord Jesus 
Christ the only personal trinity. 


Metz OBJECTIONS 5). ds wos ck tees oo nee oN Ee same Ada y ee ELA 
The ‘‘ three witnesses ’—formula of baptism-—‘‘ the apos- 
tolic benediction ’?—intercession of the Spirit—holy, holy, 
holy—Elohim—Christ’s prayers—Trinity necessary—divine 
sonship necessary—pre-existence of Christ—Christian con- 
sciousness—* the fathers,” : 


XV.—<CONCLUSION sits wm es: Palas ge Lee Pe eU Rae ORE TOS 


All truth not yet attained—all will not receive new truth— 
these views exalt God and Christ. 


BA PPENDIN AUasccatiehne davlen ts ORen a aoe ca Sorat en TSO 
Texts not quoted as proofs. 
ERE NIKE Deis oPcad ale tinertia an cree tnt re race bee ee GA 

Correct versions, showing divinity of Christ. 


TEXTS QUOTED OR. REFERRED TO....4.+-eeeceese00s 137 


if 


‘f5 


JEHOVAH-JESUS. 


I. 
WHAT IS Gop? 


[* is an interesting and important inquiry, What 
do the Scriptures teach in regard to the mode 
of existence of the. Divine Being? or in ene’ What 
is God? 

We are told, ine good men whose opinions we 
have been taught to respect, that “ There is but one 
only living and le God, who is infinite in being 
‘and perfection ;” but we are also told, by the same 
authority, that, “In unity of the Godhead there be 
three persons, of one substance, power, and eternity: 
God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy 
Ghost. The Father is of none, neither begotten nor 
proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the 
Father ; the Holy Ghost eternally proceedeth from 
- the Bathe and the Son.’’? 

“To this statement of doctrine, the Sandee of 
’ Mh _ Protestant Episcopal, Methodist Episcopal, 


_ +“ Constitution of the Presbyterian Church in the ead States 
of America,” chap. ii. sec. I, 33 


18 | FEHOVAH-FESUS. 


Reformed, and other evangelical churches, substan- 
tially agree. 

Now it is believed, that the true frie of the . 
Scriptures is this; that there is but 


ONE INDIVISIBLE AND UNDIVIDED GOD, 


of absolute, unqualified Unity ; existing or subsist- 
ing zot as three persons, but as one only : revealed’ 
and described by various xames, referring to different 
-attributes, different relations, different operations, 
not in any sense to. different divine personalities : — 
as, Jehovah, Lord, King, Father, Creator, Redeemer, . 
mooniocer. 


It is proposed to establish this position from the 
Word of God. It is claimed that this view of the 
subject is in accordance with the entire teachings of 
the Scriptures, and that it commends itself to the 
dictates of common sense; that: it. is more honora- 
ble to God than the view commonly held; and that 
it is more satisfactory to the heart of the Christian, 
as presenting to him in his Redeemer and Savior, 
in his Sanctifier and Comforter, ad/ the Sullness of an 
indivisible undivided God. 

We are under obligation to accept donee the 
Bible teaches, on= this subject as well as on every 
other, whether it is in accordance a. our-previous 
opinions or not. / 

The Bible is believed by ciate to be a reve- 
lation from God —a revelation of truths in regard to 
his character and man’s relations to him, and of the 


WHAT IS GOD? 3 19 


way of salvation he has provided: truths which 
~* could not be fully discovered by the light of nature 
‘by reason alone. A revelation is an uncovering 
‘of what was hidden.. If the Bible is what it is 
claimed and believed. to be, its language must be 
plain, so that men of ordinary ability and intelligence 
can easily understand its teachings on important 
points: and this is what it claims for itself. It must 
then be interpreted according to its plain and-ob- 
vious meaning. Its language must be.taken in its 
ordinary acceptation ; unless the’nature of the sub- 
ject, or the connection, or the unmistakable import 
‘of other passages relating to the subject under con- 
sideration, clearly require it to be understood other- 
wise. — ee . 

_.The word of God is its own interpreter; and 
therefore, in our search after the truths taught therein, 
we have no right to take an isolated text here and 
there, perhaps out of its connection, that seems to 
sustain a theory previously formed, and insist that 
such and such must be the meaning ; when a differ--- 
ent interpretation is:allowable, and when there are 
‘other passages whose statements are clear and posi- 
tive, which cannot fairly be interpreted in consis- 
tency with such assumed meaning; but we must 
examine the general teachings of the Bible upon the 
subject before us, comparing Scripture with Scripture, 
and adopt that interpretation which is. consistent 
with the whole. .If the language in any case will 
bear two interpretations, —one consistent with the 
general tenor. of the whole and with common sense, 


20 FEHOVAH-FESUS. 


.and the other contrary thereto, — we are under oblj- 
gation to accept the former. We have no fight.. 
needlessly to multiply mysteries ; nor to Be the 


. Scripture to contradict itself. 


Let us thus study the word of God with reference : 
to the subject now before us, receiving its statements 
in their plain and obvious meaning, as their Author 
must have intended they should be received. 


aE 
ONE GOD, ONLY. 


ia Christians, of whatever name, agree in the 
4 \ belief that there is but ONE Gop. , 

This belief is in accordance with reason. One 
God, of infinite attributes, is sufficient to bring into 
eéxistence. all things created, and to govern them 
when created; and it is unreasonable to suppose 
that two causes exist where one is sufficient. 

The Old Testament teaches that there is but. one 
God: teaches it unqualifiedly, abundantly. _ 

“The Lord, he is God; theré is none élse beside 
Hitt ee (Shh ord he is: Godin. heaven above, 
and upon the earth beneath: there is none else.” aS 
“The Lord our.God is one Lord.’”*. « I; even I, am 
_ he, and there is no God with me.’4. “ Thus-saith * 
the Lord the King of Israel, and his Redeemer. the 
Lord of hosts: I am the first, and I am the last, and 
beside me there is no God. Is there a God beside 
Me A Yica, there vis-no) Gods -l know aiot any.’’s 
“Tam the Lord, and there is none else: there is no 
God beside me.” ® = , 

The unity of God is as distinctly and positively 


a Deut! TV. 5th bee, 2 Deut: iv. 39. 3 Deut. vi.'4, 
4 Deut. xxxii. 39. > Isaiah xliv. 6,8. 6 Isaiah xlv. 5. 


22 3 YEHOVAH-FESUS. 


asserted in the New Testament as in the Old; and 
this too often to admit of question. “ And this: is 
- life eternal, that they might know thee, the only 
true God.’’? “But to us there is but one God, the 
Father, of Gon are all things.’ “There is one. 
God.” * “Now unto the King eternal, immortal, 
invisible, the only wise God, be honor and glory 
for ever and ever.”* “For there is one God.’* 
““‘ Thou believest that there is one God: thou doest 
well: 2 | 

The assertion of the anity of Gea being so posi- 
tive and so often repeated, we have no right to as- 
- sert a doctrine inconsistent with this, or even one 
apparently so, without the strongest proof of its 
truth, “Such ae ol the doctrine of the Trinity ”’ 
we fail to find. 

There is zot a single instance, in the Old Teas 
ment or the New, where the zature of the Divine 
Being is the subject of consideration, that gives the 
least countenance to the idea of a plurality of di- 
vine persons. The notion of such plurality,—so far 
as it is drawn from the Scriptures,—is obtained from 
passages that do ot treat of the divine nature at all; 
and it is in positive contradiction to Se Rees: 
ages that do treat of this subject, which assert, 
clearly and: undglaeey the absolute oneness -of 
God. | ) 
It is true that various ames are applied to 
the Divine Being, in both the Old and New 


1 John xvii. 3. 2 1 Cor. viii. 6. - 3. Mark xii. 32. 
4A ima: Bat sou, id. 5. 6 James ii. I9. 


- ONE GOD ONLY. 23 


Testaments, indicating or referring to different char- 
acteristics, different relations, different operations. 
But these, instead of teaching that there are different 
divine personalities, are to be understood as indi- 
cating that a// the attributes of divinity are united 
in the ONE GOD... If different personalities are de- 
noted, we cannot stop at three. 

Some of these: namés are these: — God, God 
Almighty, the Mighty God, the Eternal God, the 
Everlasting God, the Most High God, the Living 
God, the Holy God, God of Abraham, God of Israel, 
God of Daniel, God of Heaven, God of Hosts, God 
the Judge, God the Father, God of gods, the True 
God, the Lord, * the Lord God, Lord of Hosts, Lord 
of Kings, Lord: God Almighty, Lord of Lords, Jah, 
Jehovah, Jehovah God, Lord Jehovah, the Holy One, 
the Holy One of Israel, God our Savior, Savior, 
Redeemer, Creator, Jehovah the Creator, King, King 
of Israel, King of Kings, King of Glory, the Spirit, 
the Holy Spirit, the Holy Ghost.? 

Some of these names are applied to the Lord 
Jesus Christ; but it is worthy of note, that nowhere 
in the whole Bible can we find any such name or title 

s “God the Son.” This fact is certainly significant. 
We find the term “God the Father” used abun- 
dantly. Ifthe Lord Jesus Christ is “God the Son,” 


-1 Wherever the word “Lorp ” is printed in oneal capitals in our 
English Bible, the word in the Hebrew is eas ” and it should 


_ have been so translated. 


? In the English New Testament, the same Greek word is rene 
dered “ Ghost ” and “ Spirit.” 


24 | YEHOVAH-FESUS. 


we ought to find this title applied to him with such 
positiveness as to render its propriety beyond ques-° 


tion. As we do not find it at all, it is but right to 


claim that the title does not belong to‘him. But. if 
not ‘“ God.the Son,” who and what is he? . 


wail: 
THE Lorp. Jesus CHRIST. 


wre and what is the Lord Jesus Christ? The 
formularies of doctrine heretofore referred to, 

use the expression “ God the Son,” as a title belong- 
ing to the Lord Jesus Christ ;' and they speak of his 
being “eternally begotten,” “the Son of God from. 
all eternity,” “‘God’s eternal Son.” The Christian 
world in general hold, or ¢hznk they hold, the ‘eter- 
nal Sonship ” of the dzvine nature of the Lord 
Jesus; but it is doubtful whether many who do this 
can state clearly what they understand by it. 

Some have thought that the Lord Jesus is called 
“the Son,” only in reference to the work of redemp- : 
tion ; and that when that work was undertaken, one 
of he three persons in the Godhead became “God 
thes Son, 

Otters hold, that ‘tie term “ Son” ‘is applicable 
and applied to the Lord Jesus uae as a created 
being. 

This latter opinion we claim to be in accordance 
with the plain and uniform teachings of the Bible. 
Christ is called “ the Som of God, and “the Son of: 


" man;” but nowhere in. the Scriptures is he called 


“God the Son,” or the “eternal Son.” |“ Eternally 


26 FEHOVAH-FESUS. 


begotten ”’ is not Bible language, or Bible teaching ; - 
nor is it the language of common sense: it is self- 
contradictory. . 

The Lord Jesus Christ is both God and man — 
perfect man, and perfect God. 


IV. 
JESUS CHRIST Is MAN. 


cee perfect-humanity of Jesus is taught‘in both 

the Old Testament and the’ New. His being 
man, implies not merely the possession of a human 
body, but of a human soul also. 

That the Lord Jesus Christ was a man, appears 
from the fact of his huinan parentage. Inthe prom- 
ise. to Eve, he is spoken of as her “ seed.””' Moses 
announced to Israel, “The Lord thy God will raise 
up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of 
thy brethren, like unto me.”? In the prophecy of 
Isaiah, it is said of the Messiah, “ For unto us a 
child i is born, unto us a son is given.” * God said to 
Jeremiah, concerning the Messiah, “ I will raise unto 
David a righteous Branch.” * The first verse of the . 
New Testament reads as follows: “The book of 
the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the 
son of. Abraham.” *® Read the whole chapter ; also 
the first and second chapters of Luke... 

Jesus possessed the mental and moral constitu- 
tion of man. In his childhood, “he increased in 


I Gent iii, 15. 4*>'” Dent. xviii, 15: 3 Isaiah ix. 6; 
Sy feb, xxXT ss ® Mattcie 1? 


28  -YBHOVAH-YESUS. 
wisdom and stature.”* As a created being, he was — 
limited in knowledge. “ Of that day and hour knew- 
eth no one,* not the angels which are in heaven, 
neither the Son, but the Father.’’? 

‘He was obedient to his parents. “ And he went. 
. down with them, and came to Nazareth, and was 
‘subject unto them.” ° 

He acknowledged his dependence upon God, and 
his subjection to him, by prayer, by obedience, by 
submission to his will, etc. ‘He went up into a . 
mountain.apart to pray.” * ‘* He continued all night 
in prayer to God.’’*® Other instances of his habit 
of prayer will occur to the reader. -‘‘O my Father, 
if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: never- 
theless, not as I will, but as thou wilt.” * -I seek 
not mine own will, but the will of the Father which 
hath sent me.’”’ ‘‘I have finished the work which 
thou gavest me to. do.”* °“ The-Father hath not 
left me alone; for I do always those things that 
please him.’’® “The Father which sent me, he 
gave me a commandment, what I should say, and 
what I should speak.” ® ‘Wist ye not that I must - 
be about my Father’s ‘business?’”’" “I live by .the 
Father.” “ My Father is greater than Teese ol Ie 
Father hath sent me.” ™ ) 

Jesus fully recognized his humanity by the fre- 


* Correct rendering of the original Greek. 


-} Luke ii. 52. 2 Mark xiii, 32: Brie ee ele 4 Matt. xiv. 23. 
5 LEY vita. © | 8 (Matt sexvi.gg.-4 7 [nw 30,9. © ne xyin a: 


® Jn-viil. 29. ~..10 Jn xh. 40. . UL igo, 2B yn. 
49. JD, XIV 2S. yt JD. 0. i 


GESUS CHRIST IS MAN. 29 


quent Siesta to himself of the title, “The Son 
of Man.” 

Such also is the testimony of the Easciee in 
_ regard to his humanity. ‘Then shall the Son also 
himself be subject unto Him that put all things under 
him, that God may be all in all.”? “Godsent forth 
his Son, made of a woman, made under the law.’ ? 
“ God hath in these last days spoken unto us by his 
Son, whom he ‘hath appointed heir of all thmes.2 2 
“ He committed himself to him that judgeth right- 
eously.” * 

Jesus was the subject of temptation, and of men- 
tal suffering. “ Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit 
into the wilderness, to be tempted of the devil.’ 
* nae himself hath suffered, being Bates eel 

‘was in all points tempted like as we are.”?? “A 
man of sorrows, and acquainted with ee : 
| He was the recipient of divine spiritual tufluence, 
and a subject of spiritual’ growth. “The spirit of 
the Lord shall rest upon him: the spirit of wis- 
‘dom and-understanding, the spirit of counsel and 
might, the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the- 
| bed and shall make him of quick understanding | 


| sit aye fear of the Lord.”’*® - “Jesus returned in the — 


power: of the Spirit into Galilee.” "9 « God anointed 
Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with 


99 11 


power. ‘Jesus increased .-. . in favor with God 
and man.” ” 

pW Cor. xv. 28." *Gakiv.4. . *Hebvir2, 4 1-Pet. ii, 25, 
5 Matt. iv. 1. . ° Heb, ii. a8. +7 Heb. iv. 15, * 8 Esa. liti, 3, 


Psa xy By 3 aU rive B42 IL Acts x.. 38. Lies eee 


30 . JEHOVAH. FESUS, ~ 


The entire. humanity of Jesus was necessary to 
his Mediatorship. ‘There is one God, and one 
-mediator between God and men, the man Christ | 
Jesus.’”""  “ Wherefore in all things it behooved him 
to be made like unto his drethren, that he might be 
a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertain- 
‘ing to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of 
the people.’ ? 

These statements in regard to the Lord Jesus 
Christ, and others like them, made by himself and 
by others, cannot be fairly interpreted otherwise 
than by accepting his extére humanity, — the pos- 
session of a created soul, essentially human, as well 
as of a human body. 


ee oe. 


Oy Pam s,. 2208 Feb ai re, 


V. 
JESUS CHRIST IS GoD. 


gE ae is much in the prophecies of the Old 
Testament, and in the statements of the New, 
that teaches the preéxistence of the: Lord Jesus; his.” 
exalted character and position, his elevation above 
-ordinary humanity, his rulership, the extent, char- 
acter, and perpetuity of his kingdom, etc., — that is 
often- adduced as evidence of his diane of his 
Godhood. While all these are consistent with his 
divinity, they do not by any means frove it; for 
they may be true without it. The angels are super- 
human, and they existed before men; but they are 
not God. Some. of these passages will be referred 
to hereatter, es, 

In the New Testament, divine attributes and 
works are sometimes ascribed to “the Lord,” where 
it seems probable, but is not absolutely certain, that 
-the writers intended by this term to . designate the 


‘1 Some theologians use this word in a restnncied sense, as mean- © 
ing something less than absolute deity, — as signifying simply /he- 
ness to God, —as denoting nothing more than what is oe in the 
' statement that “God created man in his own image.” In this work - 
the term is used i in its ordinary sense, as signifying absolute Godhood, 
essential Aa : 


32 . FEHOVAH-FESUS. 


Lord Jesus Christ. Such passages are not here 
cited. While it may be right to treat. them as fur- 
nishing corroborative testimony, they could not. be 
considered as proof of his divinity, if more Dositive 
"evidence were wanting. 

We find the supreme deity of the. Lidia, Jesus 
Christ positively taught in the Old Testament and in 
’ the New.. 


OLD. TESTAMENT. PROOF. | 


IN the second Psalm we find this statement, in 
regard to the Messiah: ‘ Blessed are all they that 
put their trust in him.’ This could not be said of 
a mere creature, however exalted: such a being 
could not be-the proper object of supreme and uni- 
versal trust ; for, however pure in ‘intention, he must 
be limited in knowledge and power. 

In the forty-fifth Psalm the Messiah is addressed 
as follows: Sodhy eS O God, i is ey and 
ever.”? 

In the prophecy of Isaiah we read, “ For: unto us 
a Child is born, unto usa son is given; and the gov- 
ernment shall be upon his shoulder; and his name 
shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, the Mighty 
God, the Everlasting Father, the Prince of peace.’’? | 

In the prophecy of Jeremiah we find the follow- 
ing: “ Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that 
I will raise unto David a righteous Branch, and a. 
King shall reign and prosper... and this is his name 


1 Ps, ii, 12. 9 Ps. xlv.6. 8 Isa, ix. 6, 


FESUS CHRIST IS GOD. 33 


91 


whereby ae shall be called, eee our Righteous- 
ness. . 

The ar ekek Micah writes thus: “:But ae 
Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among 
the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come — 
forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose 
goings forth have been from of om from mugtice 
ing.” ? 

NEW TESTAMENT PROOF.* 

1. Jesus asserted-and claimed his own. divinity, 
- and the possession of divine prerogatives. 

Omnipresence. ‘For where two or three ‘are 
gathered together in my name, there am I in the 
midst of them.”* “Lo, I am with you alway, even: 
unto the end of the world.” * 

Divine power. “ Destroy this temple, and i in three 
days I will raise it up.”® ‘“ Therefore doth my Father 
love me, because I lay down my life, that I might 
take it again. No onet taketh it from me, but I lay 
it down of myself: I have power to lay it down, and 
I have power td take it again.”* “For as the 
Father raiseth up. the dead, and quickeneth them, 


* It is but right that the author should acknowledge his obligations 
to Rev. Henry P. Liddon, whose “ Lectures on the Divinity of our 
Lord and Savior Jesus Christ” have aided in the preparation of the 
following argument from the New Testament, and whose language 
has in some instances been adopted. 

+ Not “no man,’ as in the common version; but: no ove,” no 
other ée7vg,—God or man, angel or devil,—but. “ 2 lay it down of 
myself. | 
Jer. xxiii. 56; 2 Micah, v. 2. 3 Matt. xviii. 20. 

4 Matt. xxviii. 20. Opies ihe £3 6 Jn. x.17, 18. 


nt dete FEHOVAH-FESUS. 


even so the Son quickenéth whom he will.” ay . 
- could not be true of the Son as a created being: | 
could be true of Christ, only as God dwelt in Acs 
and acted through him. “The hour is coming, and 
- how is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the 
~ Son-of God, and they-that hear shall live.”?  " Mar- 
vel not at this? for the hour is coming, in the which - 


all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and __ 


shall come forth.’”’* ““ All things are delivered unto 
me of my Father.’’* . * All power is given unto me 
in heaven and in earth.’* “ Whatsoever ye shall 
ask ‘in my name, that will I do. If ye shall ask 
anything in my name, I will doit.”> = my 
- Omniscience. ‘Whosoever therefore shall con- 
fess me before: men, him will I-confess also before my 
Father which is in heaven. But whoever shall deny — 
me before men, him will I also deny before my 
Father whichis in heaven.”’ “Whosoever therefore 
shalf be ashamed of me and of my words, in this 
adulterous and sinful generation, of. him also shall 
the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the 
glory of his Father, with the holy angels.’ ® ie 
here claims to know the hearts of all men—a 
degree of knowledge possible to God alone. He 
said to the Samaritan woman, “ Thou hast well said, 
I have no husband; for thou hast had five hus- 
bands, and he whom thou now hast is not thy 
husband.”* And to the Jews, “But I know you, 


1 Ai Mw Bt: grr a Sve ee ss 38 Jn. v. 28, 29. 
AV Mate xine): > Matt, xxviii. 18. 6 Jn. xiv. 13, 14. 
Te MBtt cx $2293) 8 Mk. viii. 38. : 9 Jn. iv. 17, 18. 


GESUS CHRIST ZS GOD. ; 35 


that ye have not the love of God in you.”! His 
direction to Peter, in regard to finding money in the 
mouth of the fish,? and his instructions to the mes- 
sengers he sént for the ass and colt,’ show that. he. 

possessed divine knowledge. | 
Lequality with God. ‘My Father worketh hith- 
erto, and I work.’’4 ‘That all men should honor 
the Son,.even as they honor the Father.”’> -“ As the 
Father knoweth me,.even so know I the Father.’’® 
Set anel my Father are one.”’? “The Father is in 
me, and I in him.’*® ‘“ He that seeth me, seeth him 
that sent me.”*® “He that hath seen me, hath seen 
the Father.” ° “Iam in the Father, and the-Fa- 
ther in me.*"..In some-of these assertions; the 
Jews understood him to claim equality with God. 
He did not deny the charge, but admitted its truth, 
and re-asserted the claim. ‘Before Abraham was, 
P-am.”” He here, asserted, not: merely pre-exist-. 
ence, but divinity ; for he appropriated to himselfthe 
term by which Jehovah designated himself to Moses, 
—~ Tam; =the ‘self-existent one:”. Ailad’sJ esus 
intended merely to claim pre-existence as a created 
being, he would have said, “I was,’ not “I am.” 
Fudgeship. ‘For the Father judgeth no man, 
but hath committed all judgment unto the Son. . 
. And hath given him authority to execute 


* Jn. -v.42: one Matt xvine 27 3 Matt. xxi, 1-3. 


Ao ta Vee a oa es eae SJn.-x, 15; 
Fe | te KE 2308 Ue es Pac tey, # Inv xis 45. 
1O Jn xia OF ey exive 21. 12 Jn. viii. 58. | 


48 Ex, iii, 14. 


36 EHO VAH-FESUS. 


judgment also, because he is the Son of man.’ 
“When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and 
all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon 
the throne of his glory; and before him shall be 
gathered all nations; and he shall separate them 
one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep © 
_ from the goats; and he shall set the sheep on his 
right hand, but the goats on the left.. Then shall 
the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, 
ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom pre- 
pared for you from. the foundation of the world. 
Then shall he say also unto them on the left 
hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting 
fire, prepared for the devil and his angels. 
And these shall go away into everlasting punish- ” 
ment, but the righteous into life eternal.” ? 
Jesus here claims to be the supreme and final ° 
Judge of all. It may be pleaded, that this authority — 
is.merely delegated authority, “ because he is the 
Son of man.” . There is a reason in the nature of 
the case why the Judge should be a man, why he 
should have such a nature that those to be judged 
may realize his sympathy with them. But he must 
also be omniscient, to judge correctly, and omnipo- 
‘tent, to execute the sentences when pronounced. 


2. Jesus assumed and exercised divine attributes 
and prerogatives in cases “where he did not directly 
assert them. ; / 

He. wrought BESae wn his own name, and by 


tay 22; 24, 2 Matt. xxv. 31-46, 


GESUS CHRIST 1S GOD. ir 


his ‘own authority; as did not the prophets and 
apostles. ‘There came a leper and worshiped him, 
saying, Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me 
clean. And Jesus put forth his hand, and touched 
him, saying, I will: be thou clean.’ “And he 
arose, and rebuked the wind, and said unto the sea, 
Peace, be still.’? “And Jesus rebuked him, saying, 
Hold thy peace, and come. out of him.”* “And 
~-when he had thus spoken, he cried: with.a loud voice, 
Lazarus, come forth.” * | 

He forgave sins. ‘Jesus, seeing their faith, said 
unto the sick of the palsy, Son, be of good cheer ; 
thy sins be forgiven thee.”*® ‘And he said unto 
her, Thy sins are’ forgiven.”® The Jews charged 
him with: blasphemy, as assuming .a divine preroga- 
tive: He did not disclaim such assumption, but 
asserted this power and right, and healed the sick 
man as the evidence. 

He assumed to be the source of prea blessings. 
He said to Peter and Andrew, “ Follow: me, and I 
will make you fishers of men.”" Again he said, 
“Come unto me, all ye that labor and are heavy 
laden, and I will give you rest.”* To the woman 
of Samaria: “If thou knewest the gift of God, and 
who it is that saith to thee, Give me to drink, thou 
wouldst have asked of him, and he would have given 
thee living water. Whosoever drinketh of the water 
that I shall give him, shall never thirst; but the 
water that I shall give him, shall be in him a well of : 


i Matt vili! 2,3. 2 Mk ives BLE iv. 35:2. = f Inc xi. 43. 
5 Matt. ix. 2. 6 Lk. vii. 48. ™Matt.iv. 19. ® Matt. xi. 28 


38  ¥EHOVAH-FESUS. 


water springing up into everlasting life.”! “As the 
branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in 
the vine, no more can ye, except ye abide in me. 
He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bring- 
eth forth.much fruit ; for without me ye can do noth- 
ing. If ye abide in me, and my words abide in you, 
ye shall ask what ye will, and it shall be done unto 
you.”*- “I will not leave you comfortless: I will 
come to you.” ? 

He preached himself, as supreme lawgiver and 
ruler, as an infallible teacher, as the eee of supreme 
faith and obedience. ‘J say unto you,’ was a com- 
mon introduction to a command or a threatening. 4 
He did not say, as did the prophets and apostles, 
‘Thus saith the Lord,” but assumed authority as in 
his own right. He refers to the laws of Moses, 
which were confessedly given. by God thrower 
Moses, and then says, “ But 7 say unto you-s "as ip: 
he had. said," “1 have the same authority that 
dictated the laws given through Moses: it is my. 
prerogative to state the meaning and spirit of those 
laws ; my authority in the matter is supreme.” 


His. repeated direction, “ Follow me,” clearly: 2 


means something more than the mere’ personal 

accompanying him in his journeyings. It iS." eX: 

plained by the requirement of obedience to his com- 

mands, and the promises to those who obey. It 

means.something more than copying his example, as 
: Jn. i iv, LOA. 2 Jae XY, 48,87: SJ nxiv, 18, 


4 Matt. v. 18, 20, 22, 26, 28, 32; 34, 39, 44. 
5 Matt. iy. 19; viii. 22; ix. 93) J9- 1.43 «ete 


¥ESUS CHRIST IS GOD. : 39 


that of a good man. He presents himself as the u/ 
timate object of following, — as ¢he leader, in his own 
right ; while Paul, in calling on others to be follow- 
ers of himsélf, adds, ““ Even.as:1 also ami,of Christ::.” 
thatois; ““as-fat-as.k- follow: Christ, <and-no- farther,” 
Pr livelove me keep.imy commandmentss aie e - 
are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command 
you.” * “Neithéer-be ye called masters ;-for one is 
your Master, even Christ.”"* ‘“ He that loveth father 
or mother more than me, is not worthy of me; 
and he that loveth son or daughter more than me, is - 
not worthy of me. . . He that loseth-his life 
for imye sake, shall And iteo% Ab sam the: sone 
of the world: he that followeth me shall ‘not 
walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.’ ® 
“Verily, verily, I say unto you, if a man keep 
- my saying, he shall never see death.”" “Ye-believe 
in Ged';, believe also in‘me.”” |,“ 1 amithe:way, the’, 
truth, and the: life.’® “He will reprove the world 
.. of sin, because they believe not on me.’’” 
He claimed to be the giver and source of eternal 
life. ‘And this is the will of him that sent me, that - 
every one who seeth the Son, and believeth on him, 
-may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up 
at the last day. Verily, verily,-I say unto you, he 
that believeth on me hath everlasting life. Iam 
that bread of life. Whoso eateth my flesh, and 
drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will 
OR reer Teen: 2S ny Ay Teena tity taal fo Pub. anes 


4 Matt. xxiii. Io. Se Matt x. +3739." 30: 6 Jn. vill. 12. 
Ja. evil. 51. om je ctvs oT SA axe, 10° Jn xvie 8s: 


40% | FEHO VAH- YESUS. 


raise him up. at the last day.’’.  “ Verily I say unto 
you, if aman keep my saying, he shall never see 
death.” ? -“ My sheep hear my voice . . . : 
and I give unto them eternal life.”* “Iam dhe r res- 
urrection and the life. He that believeth in me, 
though he were dead, yet shall he’ live. And . 
whosoever liveth and believeth in me, shall never 
dié,2*3"* Because I“ dive, ye shall live also.’’® 
“Father, ‘the hour is come: glorify thy Son, that 
thy Son also may glorify thee: as thou hast given 
him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal 
life to as many as thou hast given him,” ° 


. 3.. He accepted the acknowledgment of his» 
divinity by others. 
~~ “And there came a leper and worshiped him, 
saying, Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me 
Bank: Instead of repudiating the worship, and the 
ascription of divine power, he accepted both, and 
replied, “I will: be thou clean.”* ‘There came a 
certain ruler, and worshiped him, saying, My daugh- 
ter is even now dead; but come and lay thy hand | 
upon her, and she shall live. And Jesus arose - 
and followed him.”* ‘And when they were come 
into'the ship, the wind ceased. Then: they that were 
in the ship came and worshiped him.” Then caine 
_ she and worshiped him, saying, Lord, help me.” ”* : 


* See also Matt. XVil, 14,15 ; Xx. 204 xxvili.9, 17 ; Lk. xxiv. 52, ° 


i frig» Sec toes 
1 Ja.wi. 40, 47, 48; 84. aa. yuk Ts BY in. een ass 
Ans, 2520.0 S incktivs) To, e Jn. Xvi 4, 2: 
H Matt. vilir2;"3: oS iMatt. ix, 285° To. 


9 Matt. xiv. 32,33.” 10 Matt. xv. 25. 


YESUS CHRIST IS GOD: AI 


In some of the instances of worship paid to Jesus, 
it may have expressed, in the intention. of those 
offering it, nothing. more than a profound reverence 
for him: as a superhuman person, or as a man of 
superior moral goodness. In either case, if he were 
not a divine being, he would have repelled it as akin 
to idolatry. It is fair to suppose that he accepted it 
as due to him as God, even while he knew that those- 
who thus expressed their reverence did: not fully 
comprehend his true character. As a good man, if 
' amere man, he would not have accepted this homage, © 
but would have refused it, as Peter did in-the case 
of Cornelius,’ as Paul and Barnabas at Lystra,? and as 
the angel at whose feet John fell ‘to worship him.” * 

Thomas addressed Jesus as “My Lord and ‘my 
_ God.” This was either a profane exclamation, or an 
' acknowledgment of his divinity. Jesus not only 
did not reprove nor correct him, but commended 
his faith in his true character, thus acknowledged.* . 


These assertions and claims and assumptions of 
divine power and prerogatives, can bé accounted for 
on but one of. these three grounds, namely: either, 
Ist, Jesus Christ was God; or, 2d, He was an ignorant 
enthusiast; or, 3d, He was a hypocritical impostor. 
The entire record of his life and teachings incon- 
testably proves. that he was neither of the two latter ; 


he must therefore have been the first—the supreme 
God. oe 


wiiictes x, Set OGhe on 2 Acts xiv. TI-18,. 
S Reyes xixe 10 * Xx#..8. Os . a ne xk 285-20; 


42 - FEHOVAH-FESUS, 


His perfect moral ‘character is consistent only _ 


with his absolute divinity. If heis not God, his 
moral character is not worthy of respect: But the 
purity of his moral character cannot be questioned. 
He was sincere, unselfish, humble; yet his self-asser- 
tion was clear, unqualified, dignified, persistent. ries? 
was, and is, the supreme God. 


The Evangelists and Apostles confirm the evi. 
dence from Christ's own lips, and clearly and posi- 
tively teach his divinity. | 

1. They give him divine titles, ; 

Matthew quotes the prophet Isaiah as saying, 
“They shall call his name Emmanuel, which being 
"Interpreted is, God with-us.”} This is imaccotdance 
with the utterance of the same prophet, already 
quoted, that he should be called, “The Mighty 7 
‘God, the Everlasting, Rather.” * : In Peters address - 
at the house of Cornelius, he says, “ The word which 
he* sent unto the children of Israel, preaching 
peace by Jesus Christ: he [this] is Lord of alf.ie 
The writer of the epistle to the Romans speaks of 
the Israelites thus: “Whose are the fathers ;-and 
of whom as ‘concerning the flesh Christ came, who 
is over all God blessed forever.’ 4 Again, Paul 
writes as follows: “For in him dwelleth all the full_. 
ness of the Godhead bodily; and ye are complete 
in him, who is the head of all principality and pow- 


* Correct translation :-the word “ God” is not in the Greék, 
vaMratt in 237. Tea viin 14. ? Isa. ix. 6. 
3 Acts*x.. 36. A Rem, axis: 


FESUS CHRIST YSIGOD nc. > 28 


er.”1 In the epistle to the Hebrews we find the 
words of the Psalmist applied to Christ: “ But unto 
the Son he saith, Thy-throne, O God, is forever and 
ever.’*- “ Weare in him that is true,;even in “his 
Son, Jesus Christ. This is the-true God, and eter- 
nal life.”* John the Revelator, represents the per- 
‘son who spoke to him as saying, ““I am Alpha and 
Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the 
Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to 
come, the Almighty.” The same person says, “I 
am he that liveth, and was dead :” this can be none 
other than the Lord Jesus.4 Again: “The Lamb 
shall overcome them; for he is Lord of lords, and 
King of kings.” * ‘Expecting the blessed hope, 
even the-appearance of the glory of our great God 
and Savior Jesus Christ.”** “Thou shalt call his 
name Jesus, for he shall save his people from their 
sins." esus signifies Savior ; and the reason as- 
signed for giving him this name, shows that it was 
significant of divinity ; no other than God can save 
from siz. This latter term is applied to God-and to 
Christ indiscriminately and repeatedly in this sense 
—that of the Savior from. sin. Examples need 
not be multiplied. 


2. They ascribe to him angae attributes and - 
prerogatives. 4 
Lmmutability. “ Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, 


.* Corrected translation, See Appendix B. ’ 
4 Col. ii,:9, 10,0" 4? Heb, 4.:8.., / 8 £ Jn, v. 20..%:;.-4 Reva in 8) 13) 
e Rey, xXvil.t4s) © Vitus it 13.0% Matte i. ar. 


Ages FEHOVAH-FESUS. 


and to-day, and forever.’’ This could not be said 
of a mere creature. Spies , 
Divine power and authority. “The people were 
astonished at his doctrine; for he taught them as_ 
one having ‘authority, and not as the scribes.’ ? 
“Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.’’® 
“We look for the Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, 
who shall change our vile body, that it may be fash- 
ioned like unto his glorious body, according to the 
working whereby he is able even to subdue all things: 
unto’ himself.”* “I thank Christ. Jesus our Lord, 
-who hath enabled me, for that he counted me faith- 
ful, putting me into the ministry.”* “The appear- 
ing of our Lord Jesus; which in his times he shall. 
show, who isthe blessed and only Potentate, the 
King of kings, and Lord of lords; who only hath” 
immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can 
approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can 
see; to whom be honor and power everlasting.’’® 
“Upholding all things by the word of his powez.”’? 
_ Creation and preservation. “ All things were 
made by him; and without him was -not anything 
made that was made.’’* “ One’ Lord Jesus Christ, 
by whom are all things, and we by him.” * “ For by 
him were all things created, that are in heaven, and 
that are in earth; visible and invisible; whether 
they be thrones, or ‘dominions, or principalities, or 
powers; all things were created by him, and for him; 
aah BAR: 58 Matti vile 8)20i). 18a Cones. 
*oPhil- iii. 20, 21. A Pind, 2, 6 t Tim. vi. 14—16. 
Toreb sing. Pui ne ie is Sur Cor: yiin6: 


SESUS CHRIST IS GOD? 45 


and he is before all things, and by him all things 
consist. = 3 3 

Divine Knowledge. ‘“ And Jesus, knowing their 
thoughts, said, Wherefore think ye evil in your 
hearts?”? “ But ‘Jesus did not commit himself unto 
them, because he knew all men, and needed not that 
any should testify of man, for he knew what was in ’ 
man.’ - “ Now are we sure that thou knowest all 
things.”* Peter. said to him, “ Lord, thou .knowest 
all things.’ Jesus did not reprove his disciples for 
thus attributing to him omniscience, as he would 
have. done had he not possessed this attribute. 
John represents him as saying, “I am he who 
searcheth the reins and hearts.” **.. 

Conferring miraculous and spiritual gifts. .“ He 
gave them power against unclean spirits, to .cast 
them out, and to heal all_manner of. sickness and_all . 
manner of disease.’’" On the day of Pentecost; in’ 
explaining to the people the miraculous effusion of 
‘thewoepint, Peter stated: that -“Sthis: Jesus-<-...; hath 
shed forth this, which ye now see and_hear.”*® 
“ Christ liveth in me.”’*®. “ Now our Lord Jesus Christ _ 
himself . . . . comfort your hearts, and stablish you 
in every good word and work.” “‘ The author of 
' eternal salvation unto all them that obey him.’" 
“The Son of God is come, and hath given us an 


Col. i. 16, 17. +, * Matt. ix-4, 2 Jn, ii, 24, 25. 


Sls xN iy 30. ae bf xxi 27. SoRew il, 23: oe 
= Secalso. Mi il.8-<"Lky ix. 47 3In. ivet7, 28° vi 15,61; 64.3 xlity 11g 
7 Matt. x. 1.” 8-Acts ii, 32, 33: 9 Gal, ii. 20, 


ea These il 10,.1 73 11 Heb, v. g. 


. the Lamb, forever and ever. 


46 _ JEHOVAH-FESUS. 


understanding, that we may know him that is true.” 
“Looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus ae 
unto eternal life.’ 

They recognize him as the object of worship. 
Stephen prayed, “ Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.”*? - 
“God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a. 
name which is above every name; that at the name 
of Jesus every knee should ne, ews SLC SLI 
every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ. is 
Lord.” * “ When he bringeth in the first begotten 
‘into the world, he saith, And let all the angels Of 
God worship him.”*® “Unto him that loved us, 
and washed us from our sins in his own blood, and 
hath made us kings and priests unto God, even his 
Father, to him be glory and dominion forever and 
ever.” *° John represents the inhabitants of heaven 
as worshiping “The: Lamb that was slain,” and 
ascribing to him equal honor and glory with God; 
saying, “ Blessing, and honor, and glory, and power, 
be unto him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto 

4 

They ascribe to him eguality with God. The © 
name of Christ is coupled with that of God, or God | 
the Father, in many instances, as of equal power 
_and authority, and as equally the source of spiritual 
blessings.. “ Now, God himself, even our Father, 
and our Lord Jesus Christ, direct our way unto 
you.”*® “They shall be priests of God and’ of 

1 -Jn: ¥; 20.75 | 2 Jude 21. 3 Acts. vii. 59. 

4 Phil. ii, g-11. Hebb: 6 Rev. i.'5, 6, 

TARE: Neck Se oS: S21 These aye. en 


JESUS CHRISTE OLS. GOD, 47 


Christ.” * ‘‘ Grace to you, and peace, from God our 
Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.” ® Language 
similar to this is used in the epistles, again and 
again.* 

In the first three chapters of the Revelation, 
Christ is repeatedly represented as asserting divine 
attributes and prerogatives. “I am alive forever- 
more, Amen, and have the keys of hell and of 
death.” * “I know thy works, and thy labor, and 
thy patience.’* ‘TI will come unto thee quickly, 
and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, 
except thou repent.” * “ Be thou faithful unto death, 
and I will give thee a crown of life.” * + 


Other passages might be quoted as corroborating 
the position here maintained; but the foregoing are 
believed to be sufficient to convince the candid in- 
quirer, that the doctrine of the Bible is, that the 
Lord Jesus Christ is God. These things could not 
be said of a mere creature, however exalted.t 

The earliest records of the history of the Chris- 
tian church, that have come down to us, warrant 
the belief that the divinity of Christ has always been 
_a doctrine of the church,— that Christians from the 
earliest times have worshiped him as God.§ But 


a See L-COM in 3 ¢22- Com. 2 > Gal. i., 3 + eté svete, 
+. See ch, ii. vs; 9, 13317, 19, 23, 26; ch. ili. vs. I, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 
12; F5,21. t See Appendix.B. 
$ See Liddon’s Bampton Lectures on “the Divinity of our Lord 
. and Savior Jesus Christ ;” Lecture VII. 
1 Rey. xx. 6. = Romnis 7 3 Rev. i. 18. 
* Rey. ii-2. BY Rey, ii..5. eRevait. 10: 


48 FEHOVAH-FESUS,. 


these records do zot¢ show that the Christians of the 
early centuries believed that his divinity was a differ- 
ent divine personality from God the Father. 

The most absolute proof of Christ’s supreme 
deity, does not prove a different divine personality . 
or “subsistence” or “hypostasis” from God the 
Father. 


VI. 


JESUS CHRIST xot “GOD THE Son.” 


ee Lord Jesus Christ, in his divine nature, is 
not “God the Son,” but the one only indivisi- 
ble and undivided God, in<all his fullness. 

If the term above had been the proper expres- 
sion to describe Christ’s divinity, it would certainly 
have ‘been used; but it is not found in the Bible. 
There is no reasonable explanation of this omission, 
except this, that he is zot “God the Son,” which is 
an epithet of man’s device. 

The very strongest expressions. indicative of 
supreme deity are used in the Scriptures in regard | 
to Christ. These cannot be applicable if his divinity 
proceeded from, or was begotten of, another; if he 
were in any sense “God the Son,” if he were in any 
manner or degree subordinate or inferior in his 
divine nature. An inferidr or secondary God is no 
God at all. . 

In the passage-in Isaiah already referred to, we’ 
read, “ Unto us a child is born, unto-us a son is 
given; ... and his name shall be called . . . the 
Mighty God, the Everlasting Father.” !. This cer- 
‘tainly is a prophecy of Christ, as being both God 


! Tsa. ix, 6. 


50 SFEHOVAH-FESUS. 


and man. And it is here plainly taught, that in his 
divine nature he-is no secondary divinity, —that he 
is not God the Son, but God the Father. God evi- 
dently designed, in inspiring the prophet to use this 
language, to anticipate and to preclude the error 
that the Lord Jesus Christ is not the one infinite 
God in all his fullness. If we-read the expression, 
“Everlasting Father,’ as some have done, “the 
Father of the everlasting age,” it will not affect its 
teaching in ‘regard to the divine nature of Christ ; 
for “the Father of the everlasting age” can be none 
other than the Supreme God, who is over all, the 
Father of all things. 

Jesus repeatedly recognized his relations to the 
Father in a manner that precludes the idea of any 
divinity in him in any sense distinct from God the 
Father. | / 

When he taught his disciples to pray, he in- 
structed them to address the “ Father,” ’ to “ ask of 
the Father’? in his name, not to ask him. Again 
he says, “In that day ye.shall ask me [that is, the 
man Jesus] nothing. .... Ye shall ask the Father 
in my name.’* If.he was God the Son, “ equal 
with the Father,” why not ask him as such? Christ 
nowhere directed his followers to pray to himself, 
nor to the Holy Spirit. Why not? ‘Was it not 
because he wished them to understand that God the 
Father was God the Savior, and God the Sanctifier 
and Comforter also? in short, that the Father alone 
was God ? 


1 Matt. vi. 6, 9. 2 Jn. xv. 16, ida fis Wes-4'2 ov” 6 


NOT GOD THE SON. 51 


Again he says, “ The Son of man shall come in 
the glory of his Father.”' Why did he not say, 
that he should come in the glory of God the Son? 
Manifestly, because the divine glory, the divine. 
Mature, of. Christ, is that. of God the Father, and 
none other. 

_. In speaking to his digciples of his second coming, 
Jesus told them that “ Of that day and hour know- 
eth no one; * no, not the angels which are in heav- 
én ; Helier the Son, but the Father.”? If-God 
AP Son” is “very God of very God,” + if “in this 
Trinity there is not first nor last, nor greater nor 
less,’ { if “ God the Son”’ is Ree and eternal God 

equal with the Father,” § he sust know all 
nes he must know the hour spoken of. If “the 
Father” is the only being who possesses this knowl- 
edge, then the Father must be the only divine per- 
son; and the Lord Jesus Christ, if.God at all, is not 
God the Son, but God the Father, — the one only 
infinite God, in all his fullness: 

“T seek not mine own will, but the will of the 
Father which hath sent me.”? If he was God, he 
must have sought his own will; it was therefore as — 
a created being that he did not seek it. If God the 
Son, “ very God,” and “ equal with the Father, One 
must have sought and did seek his own will; and 
there was no occasion for referring his acts ta the 


* Corrected translation? The worc “man” is not in the original, 
+ Nicene Creed, so called. - t Athanasian Creed, so called. 

S$ Westminster Confession of Faith. 

+! Matt. xvi. 27. ? Mk. xiii. 32, Se) eave 30: 


- - 


52 ‘YEHOVAH-FESUS. 


Father’s will, and no propriety in so doing. He. 
clearly recognizes no God but the Father. 

“The same works that I do, bear witness of me, 
that the Father hath sent me.”! He attributes the 
divine power that wrought the miracles, to God the . 
Father, and to nore other. “The Father that 
dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.” ?- Why did he 
not say, ‘‘God the Son that dwelleth in me, he 


doeth the works?” Because the divinity dwelling 


in him was God the Father, and no other. And we 
have no ‘right to contradict -his clear and positive 
statement. 

ing eve living Father hath sent me, and I live by 
the Father.”* This he speaks as a. man; “for. as 
divine, he lived by virtue of his divinity. If he was 


God the Son, he did not as a man live by God the 


Father, but by God the Son, the divinity within 
him; and he would have so said. 

“T and the Father are one.” ‘The Father is in 
me, and Tin him,”4 He here asserts his identity 
with the Father. 

* “Jesus cried and said, He that believeth on me, 
believeth not on me, but on him- that sent me.” ® 
This again he says as a man; directing his disciples 
beyond himself as such, to the divine nature dwell- 
ing in him, as the true object of faith. If he was 
God the Son, then as such he was worthy of all 
confidence and trust, and must have claiined and 
received the same as his right. But he refers them 


ahs "30: OS Tex LO S Jas vis 572 
at, X5-30, 35.6" SE Bal ele ot ye 


NOT GOD* THE: SON. 53 


_to “him that sent him,’—to the Father. He was, 
then, God the Father, or not God at all. 

“TI have not spoken of myself; but the Father 
.which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what 
I should say, and what I should speak.”! He says 
this as a man; as God, he did speak of himself, by 
his own prerogative. But he recognizes no divine 
being as inspiring and directing him, but the 
Father. 

“The word manich ye hear is not mine, but the 
Father’s which sent me.”? In this instance, as above, 
and as repeatedly elsewhere, he ascribes his mission 
and his works and his words, to “ the Father.” If he 
was God the Son, he possessed all divine powers and 
prerogatives in and of himself, by virtue of his divin- 
ity, and could not possibly be in any manner or de- 
gree dependent upon any other being; for whenever 
and whereinsoever he was dependent or subordinate, 
then and there he was not and could not be’ God; 
and if not God entirely, he could not be God at all. 

“My Father is greater than I.”* If “God the 
Son” is “ very God,” “equal with the Father,” this 
could not be true of his divine nature. How then is 
it true? Only as respects his created nature. The 
Father is greater than the Son, only because the 
Son is not, as such, God. 

“T am not alone, but the Father is with me.” 4 
The context shows that he said thisasaman. Why 
did he not say, instead of or in addition to this, 


YE [iin AT): 7 [tes River oa 
8 Jn. xiv. 28. ashi hs ape 


54. YEHOVAH-YESUS. 


“God the Son is with me?” Because no such being 
was present. : 

“Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, 
that thy Son also may glorify thee; as thou hast 


given him power over all flesh, that he should give 


eternal life to as many as thou hast given him.”! 
If God the Son, he had this power by virtue of his 
Godhood; it could not be given him as God. It 
was given to him as a created being, by the divinity 


dwelling in and acting through him; and this divin- | 


ity he always recognizes as the Father alone. In 
this whole chapter of prayer to the Father, Jesus re- 
cognizes the Father as God alone, and himself as 
subordinate, as sent, as having power given him; 
which could be true of him only as a created being. 
He recognizes no other divine person as having any 
connection with him, or as having any existence. 
He had just previously, in conversation with his 
disciples, asserted clearly and positively his identity 


with the Father.’ “If ye-had known me, ye should 


have known my Father also; and from henceforth 
ye know him, and have seen him.” . Philip replies, 
‘‘ Lord, show us the Father, and it sufficeth us.” 
To which Jesus answers, as though astonished that 
Philip had not perceived his divine character, “‘ Have 
I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not 
known me, Philip? He that hath seen me, hath seen 
the father; and how sayest thou then, Show us 


the Father? . . . I amin the Father, and the 
lather in me... . The Father, that dwelleth 


1 Ja. Xvi. - 152. 2 in. KdV. oFenT, 
? 


“ee ae 


NOT GOD LAE SON, 55 


in me, Ze doeth the works. Believe me, that I 
am in the Father.and the Father in me.” If the Lord 
Jesus had wished to teach that in his divine nature 
he was God the Father, he could not have said it 
more plainly. If he was not God the Father, but a 
different divine person, namely, God the Son, here 
was the proper occasion for teaching this truth. 
Why did he not thus teach? Because it was zof the 
truth ; because the divinity in him was and is God the 
Father, and no other. And we have no right to 
contradict his clear and positive and reiterated 
statements. 


The New Testament writers bear similar testi- 
mony in regard to the nature of Christ’s divinity. 
They do not appear to have heard or known of 
‘God the Son.” 

“Jesus, knowing that the Father had given all 
things into his hands.”? If he was God the Son, all 
things were in his hands, and God the Father could 
place nothing there that was not in his power 
already. If this is said of him as a man, why should 
the divinity within him,—God the Son,—be_ passed 
over and entirely ignored, and this delegation of 
power be attributed to one outside of him? No 
such mistake was made. It was God the Father, 
not God the Son, that conferred honor and power 
_ upon the created Son, by dwelling in and acting 
through him, 

Near the close of the life of Christ aby John, 


4 Jha sth 


56 FEHOVAH-FESUS. 


which was evidently written for the purpose of refut- 


ing errors then already prevalent in régard to the 
person of the. Lord Jesus, and to teach the truth 
concerning him, the inspired writer thus states his 
object: “But these are written, that ye might be- 
lieve that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and 
that believing ye might have life through his 
name.” ' He here asserts that he writes for the 
express purpose of showing Christ’s true character. 
And what does he say? What name does he give 
him? “God the Son?” No. Though he had 
clearly taught his divinity, he had not taught that 
that divinity was in any sense separate or distinct 
or different from that of God the Father; nor does he 


now so teach, but simply styles him “the Christ, 


[or Messiah,] the Son of God.” This can be reason- 
ably accounted for, only on the ground that John 
knew. of no such being as “God the Son.” 
Paul-writes to the Corinthians: ‘“‘ Then shall the 
Son also himself be subject unto him that put all 
things under him, that God may be all-in all.”? If 
“the Son” here is “ God the Son,” the propertex- 


pression would have been, “that God the Father may: 


be all in all.” Why did not the apostle so write? 
Simply because the Son as such is not God. If the 
Son is as such God, then all things always were un- 


der him, from the very nature of the case, and noth- - 


ing could by any possibility be “put” under him. 
Again Paul tells the Corinthians that “God was 
in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself.”* The 


1 Jn. xx, 3¥. 2 1 'Con xv.-28... $2 (Cor v0. 


—— a > ee eS Oe 


NOT GOD THE SON. | 4 


apostle does not say, “God the Son,” but ‘ God,” 
God. as the being to whom the world needs to be 
reconciled; and who is this but God the Father, God 
the Lawgiver, God the King?’ And if God is thus ° 
in Christ, Christ cannot be God the Son. ” 

_ “Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, 
and given him a name which is above every name, 
that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow. .. 
and that every tongue should confess that Jesus 
Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.’ ? * 
The only name that is or can be “above every 
name,” is that of God the Father. The Divinity in 
Christ must then be God the Father. If the common 
theory is true, he is ‘ Lord, to the glory of. God the 
Son.’ But this is not what the apostle says. 

Paul writes to the Colossians, “ For it pleased 
the Father that in him should all fullness dwell.” ? 
Again: “ Beware lest any man spoil you through 
philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of 
men, after the rudiments of the world,.and not after 
Christ: for in him dwelleth all the fullness of the 
Godhead bodily.” * If Christ is merely God the Son, 
the inspired apostle could not have used this lan- 
guage. “All fullness” could not dwell in him, if he 
was a subordinate or secondary divine person. “ All 
the fullness of the Godhead” must include God the 
Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost, if — 
there are three such personalities. This passage alone 
is sufficient to dispose of and refute the whole theory 
. in question. Paul seems to have anticipated the ex- 


1 Phil. ii, g-17. 2 Col. i. To. 3 Col. ii. 8, 9." 


585 FEHOVAH-FESUS, 


istence of some such error; for he warns the Colos- 
sians against the “ philosophy” and “ vain deceit ” 
and “ tradition of men,” that would teach that Christ 
in his divine nature was anything less or anything 
else than the whole of the one infinite God. 

“The appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ; which 

in his times he shall show, who is the blessed and 
only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords ; 
who only hath -immortality, dwelling in the light 
‘ which no man can approach unto; whom:no man 
hath ¢seen,. nor) can sée ;.-to whom be honor and 
power everlasting, Amen.”’ Ifhe is the “only Po- 
tentate,” if he “only hath immortality,” he is thes 
only divine person, — God the Father. 
' The testimony of John the Baptizer agrees with 
that of Isaiah and Paul and the beloved disciple, 
and with that of the Lord Jesus himself: “ He that 
cometh from above, is above all.”? Now if Jesus is © 
“above all,” there certainly can bé none above 
him; he must be the God who is above all, even 
God the Father, who is God alone. 


The passages above quoted certainly afford 
abundant and indisputable evidence that the divin- 
ity of the Lord Jesus Christ was and is Gop THE 
FATHER, zot “God the Son:” that he is the one 
only undivided and indivisible God, in all the per-. 
fection of his being and attributes. 

Yet he is, and is called, THE SON OF Gop. 


1] Tim. vi. 14-16. 2 J 101,43 Ts 


VII. 
THE SON OF Gop. 


HE question naturally now arises, Who and 
what is thé Son of God ? 

Die very wordsy-“Son,’ “born; ‘““berotten,™ 
necessarily imply beginning, succession, dependence, 
inferiority of relation. These cannot be eternal, in 
- the "ie nature of things. The language, “ eternal 
Son,” “ eternally begotten,” “ eternally proceeding,” 
is self-contradictory. _To those not trained to ac- 
cept this phraseology as in accordance with the 
teachings of the word of God, it is absurd; and the | 
idea thus expressed is, to such, not a mystery above 
reason, but a dogma eee to reason, oc insult- 
ing to common sense. 

The Son of God is the first and ereatest ee: 
being, —dwelling in whom, and through whom as 
the instrument, God — the Father — performed the 
work of creation. It was this twofold being, — the 
Creator and created, Father and Son, united, — who 
appeared to Adam, to Moses, and to the saints of 
old, in human form. It was he who “ became. 
flesh,” and dwelt among men, in the person of the 
Lord Jesus Christ. 

The Lord Jesus Christ is called “the Son of 


6o . FEHOVAH-FESUS. 


God,” because he was the only being created directly 
byaacod* the, Pather,-the™ 77st ‘being screated -all- 
other beings and creatures being made by him, the 
Son, as the instrument through. whom God per- 
‘formed the work;—also because he was born of © 
Mary through direct divine agency, she being his 
only human parent. The title “ Son of God” is also 
sometimes applied to him as designating the one 
person in whom the divine and the human are united. 

In the epistle to the Colossians, Christ, the Son, 
is called “the first-born of every creature.” * And 
as if to refute any who might say that this does not 
mean priority of exzstence, but precedence of posztzon, 
the apostle adds, “‘ For by him were all things crea- 
ted;” that is, all other things were created by or 
through him, the Son, the * first-born ” creature, as 
the instrument. - That it "was a created being who 
thus performed the work of creation in general, is evi-_ 
dent from the context, whete he is termed “ the first- | 
born from the dead.”*® — 

Again, we are told, that ‘‘God hath spoken to us 
by hisSon, . . .... by whom also he made the’ 
worlds.” * God the Father performed the work, in 
and through the Son, a created being, who could not 
do it. by his own power. 

The same writer asks, “Unto which of the 
angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this 
day have I begotten thee?”’4 . It seems that the Son 


UCol: dak, 2.Col. i..18: 
8 Heb. i. (1, 2: 4 Heb.-i. 5. 


s 


THE SON OF GOD. 61 


’ 


was “ begotten”’ or created at a definite time called 
iihiereay.. | “Doese this day imednra-yesterday at 
an eternal distance from the present time? This 
must’ beso, if the“ eternal sonship’’1s:the truth: 
In the sixth verse of the same chapter, he is styled 
“the first-begotten.” What:can this.mean;in the 
light of common sense, but that he was. begotten, — 
had a beginning, — before any others were begotten 
or created? Nothing else. 

In giving John a message to the church of the 
Laodiceans, Jesus Christ calls himself ‘ the beginning 
of the creation of God.” ’. He certainly knew who 
and what he was; and he knew how to-use language 

correctly. This expression can have but: one 
~ meaning. 

If these passages do not teach that the Lord 
Jesus Christ was the first being created, what can be 
their meaning? Certainly this is their obvious: im- 
port; and if we are not to interpret the Bible in 
accordance with this, it is not a revelation, not a 
book for the common ‘people; and the Bereans 
should have accepted the teachings of the apostles 
without question, instead of searching the Scriptures 
‘whether those things were so;’’” and they should 
have been blamed rather than praised for thus 
assuming the right of private judgment. 

The Scriptures elsewhere teach the pre-existent 
_ Sonship of Christ; his pre-existence as a created 
being; and they nowhere teach aes doctrine tncon- 


DoD) 
sistent with thts.. 


1 Rev. ili, 14. 2 Acts xvii, IT. 


62 | JEHOVAH-FESUS. 


“God sent his only begotten Son into the 
world.” * This clearly teaches Christ’s pre-existence 
as the created Son of God; for it would not be cor- 
rect to say that God sex¢ him into the world, if he 
made him in the world —he did not send Adam into 
the world. If he was the “Son” before he came 
into the world, he must have been such as a created — 
being ; for if he was “ God the Son,’ he was already 
in the world, by virtue of his divinity, and could not 
be sent’into it. The apostle does not say, —as do 
our modern’ theologians, — ‘“‘ God the Father sent 
God the Son,” but, God — the. one God, God in all 
his fullness and perfection —sent, not another divine 
person, who could not be sent.to any place where he 
was not already present, but his “begotten” Son, 
‘who was not omnipresent, and could be sent. 

Jesus asks his disciples, “ What and if ye shall 
see the Son of san ascend up where he was before?’”’? 
And he told Nicodemus that the “Son of man” 
“came down from heaven.” ? If Christ was not the 
Son ‘of man until born of Mary, it could not be said 
that the Son of man came down from heaven. ° He 
must-have existed as a created being, with an essen- 
tially human sou, in heaven, before his birth with a . 
human dody, at Bethlehem. 

‘Again he says, “I came down from’ heaven, not 
to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent 
me.”* If he that came down from ‘heaven was God 
the Son, a divine being onZy, his will must necessarily 
have been the same -with that. of God the Father ; 


Pat UD HiV 5.0: : i vi. 62. 8 Jalili 13: saith. vi, 38. 


THE SON OF GOD. , 63 


and he must have come to do his own will. There 
could have been no possibility that his will could 
have differed from that of God that sent him, unless 
he were essentially a different being —a created 
being. es 
| In the prayer of the Lord Jesus, before his cruci- 
fixion, he says, “ Father, I will that they also whom 
thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that 
they may behold my glory which thou hast given 
me; for thou lovedst me before the foundation of 
the world.”' If Jesus, in his divine nature, is God 
the Son, and God the Son is “very God,” he must 
as such have possessed all glory, and God the Father 
could not have given him any. But if he existed 
before the foundation of the world as a created being, 
as the Son of God, God the Father could love him 
as such, and could give him glory by uniting him- 
self with him, and making him the instrument of 
creation; as the Scriptures inform us was the fact. 
This is certainly the obvious interpretation of the 
passage, and the one in harmony with the other 
teachings of Scripture upon this subject.. Nowhere 
in the Scriptures is the association of the Son with 
the Father represented as having existed from eter- 
mtv: in.the beginning,» “betorezthe world was,” 
“before the foundation of the world,” is the lan- 
suage used; language adapted and evidently in- 
tended 'to exclude the notion of eternity-past. * 

~ Jesus “was made a little lower than the angels 
for [or by] the suffering of death.”* God could not 


1 Jn. xvii 24. « % Jn. i. 1,2; xvii. 5, 24. 3 Heb. ii. g. 


Caen 8G YEHOVA H-FESUS. 


suffer death ; it was a created being that so suffered. 
But it was for or by this suffering that he became 
lower than the angels. He must, then, have been 
at least equal to the angels in the nature capable of 
suffering; therefore, in his created nature, a being 
superior to what he was or could be merely as the 
Son of Mary, and pre-existent as such. 

Another class of texts teaches the same truth — 
the pre-existence of the Son of God. 

y pa Word became flesh,* and dwelt among 
us.’ “Therefore being a prophet, and lencivin' 
that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of 
the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would 
raise up Christ to sit on his throne.’2 ‘His Son 
Jesus Christ our Lord, which became * of the seed of 
David, according to the flesh.”* ‘Whose are the 
fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ 
came.” * “ Forasmuch then as the children are par- 
takers of flesh. and blood, he also himself likewise 
took part of the same ; that through death he might 
destroy him that eal the power of death; that is, 
mreidevil”).” i 

Why these expressions, ‘“‘ became flesh,” “ accord- 
ing to the flesh,” etc.? Two explanations may be 
given: first, that Christ’s humanity consisted merely 
in his having a human body; second, that his 
created soul had an existence before his birth with a 
human body: We have already seen that the for- 


* Correct rendering of the original. 1 Jn. 14. 
PActs'31.240; # Rom, 1.3; 
4-Ronk, ix.-5, 5 Heb. ii: 14. 


THE SON OF GOD. iGE 


mer supposition is not warranted by the Scriptures. 
We must then accept the latter; for there would be 
no propriety in the use of this language, if the exist- 
ence of Christ’s created soul commenced with his 
human parentage. 

The Bible nowhere says that the Lord Jesus 
“became man’ when he became the son of Mary. 
He then “‘ became flesh ;”’ -he possessed the essen- 
tials, the higher attributes of manhood, before he 
came down from heaven, and therefore did not then 
become man.* 

Again, we read, “The Son of God was mant- 
fested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.” 
It is not said that he was then born, or created, or 
brought into existence, but that he was manifested, 
shown, made to appear; implying his pre-existence 
as the Son of God, before he became the son of 
Mary. 


It was this only and first-begotten Son of God, 
that, in union with the divine nature of God the Fa- 
ther, and as the instrument through whom God 
the Father acted, performed the work of creation. 
“ One Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things.” ? 
as The Word was with God, and the Word was God. 
; ~All things were made by him.”* He - 
was “with God,” and thus zo¢ God, and yet he “ was 
God.” The Word, or Logos, is not the divine alone, 
nor the created alone, but the twofold person, God . 


* See Jn. iii. 13; and vi. 62. 1 t Ja. ‘iii. 8. 
2 t Cor. viii. 6. 3 Jn. i. I—3. 


EGO YEHOVAH-YESUS. 


and the Son, the uncreated and the first-created, 
united. *. « God . . . . hath spoken unto us 
by his*Sony<".\s. sce by whomealsoheaiate chest 
worlds.”" If the Son, as God. the Son, performed 
the: work of creation, the language should have 
been, “by God the Son, who made the worlds.” But 
_ the writer said what he meant, and meant what he said. 

— It was this twofold being, called frequently in the 
Old Testament, “ the Angel Jehovah,” who “ walked” 
in the garden of Eden,and talked with Adam,t ? - 
and who appeared again and again to the patriarchs © 
and holy men of old. An angel isa messenger, one 
sent ; not the sender, but a subordinate being, neces- 
sarily a‘creature. A divine person could not go, or 
be sent, to any place where he was not already pres- 
ent; for divinity is necessarily omnipresent. The 
Angel Jehovah, then, was the Creator and the Grea 
- sure, nited. 


* “The Gospel of John, in accordance with the doctrine of Paul, 
which differs only in the form of expression, applied the term Logos 
(Word) to the complete and personal revelation of God in Christ,.”— 
Hagenbach, (See Col. i. 13—19; also Hebrews, ch. i.) 

“It is plain that the Zison (Image) of St. Paul, is equivalent in 
his rank and functions to the Logos (Word) of St. John. Each exists 
prior to creation ; each is the one agent increation. Each isa divine 
person ; each is equal with God, and shares his essential life ; each is: 
really none other than God.’—Liddon. 

The writers above quoted appear to have come very near the 
truth, without quite reaching it. 

+ For the opinion that this was Christ, see Scott, Pool, Boothroyd, 
Bush, etc. The expression translated “the angel of the Lord,” in 
many places in the,Old Testament, should, in the judgment of able 
scholars, have been rendered, ‘‘ the angel Jehovab.” 

1 Heb. i. 1, 2. -  % Gen, iii. 8. 


THE SON OF GOD. 67 


He was “the Lord” (Jehovah), one of the “three 
men” that appeared to Abraham, and ate with him, 
on the plains of Mamre, before whom Abraham 
stood and plead for the sparing of Sodom, and who 
“went his way as soon as he had left communing 
with Abraham.” * 

The “angel of the Lord” that found Hagar by 
the fountain, was the same Angel Jehovah.’ He 
assumed the prerogatives of divinity, and .Hagar 
acknowledged him as God. 

It was the same Angel Jehovah that stayed the 
hand of Abraham, when about to slay Isaac, and 
who said, “I know that thou fearest God, seeing 
thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son, from 
me;”’ andwho called himself ‘“ Jehovah.”* This was 
the “man” who wrestled with Jacob at Peniel, and 
at the same time “‘God’”’ whom he saw “ face to 
face: < 

Piewas..the same divine “ancel,’-the.4 God or 
Israel,” that was seen by Moses and the elders of 
Israel on Mount Sinai, and who spoke to them there.’ 
We are told that ‘No man hath seen God at any 
time,’’* that is, God as a Spirit. What they saw 
must have been the Angel Jehovah, the same who 
“spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh 
unto his friend ;” *—“the Lord,” (Jehovah,) who 
spoke to Moses zof “in a vision,” nor “in a dream,” 
but “ mouth to mouth, even apparently,’ whose “si- 


* Gen. xviii. ~ — ® Gen. xvi. 7-13. 8 Gen, xxii. 12, 16, 
4 Gen. xxxii, 24-30, bx. xx1V-.10,-1t,and: Acts’ vit. 395748. 
€ jn, 1.18; TEX, XXKiI1,-E1 +) Déuts xxxivs 10. 


68 FEHOVAH-FESUS. 


militude” he beheld. He was a created being, he- 

cause ‘‘seen,” and talked with “mouth to mouth ” 
and “ face to face,” yet also Jehovah, God himself. 

He was the spiritual rock,” the “angel,” that 

was with the Israelites in -the wilderness, which 

“rock was, Christ.” ? 3 

The same “ Angel Jehovah” withstood Balaam, 
“with his sword drawn in his hand ;”—shown to be 
a divine being by the expression, “thy way is per- 
_ verse before me,” and by the command, “ Only the 
word that / shall speak unto thee, that thou shalt 
speak,” in connection with the language of Balaam, 
“The word that God: putteth in my mouth, that 
shall I speak.’ : 

This was the “man” that appeared to Joshua 
before Jericho, who came as “ captain [or prince] of 
the host of the Lord,” and who is also called “ Je- 
hovah,” and proceeds to issue his orders as captain. 

‘Tt was this same ‘Angel’ of the Lord” that 
“came up from Gilgal to Bochim,” who was clearly’ 
a divine person, God himself; for he said, “7 made 
you to go up out of Egypt, and have brought you 
unto the land which / sware unto your fathers.” ° | 

It was the same divine-human being that ap-— 
peared to. Gideon... He was: an. “‘angel,”’ a created 
being, yet he was also “ Jehovah.” ® 

The same angel of the Lord; or Angel Jehovah, 
was the “man of God” that appeared to Manoah 
SCL Narae apron: a 1 Ex, xxiii 20,1 Gana 

3 Num. ‘xxii. 22, 32, 35, 38: 4 Josh. v. 13-<15; and vi. 2—5. 
5 Judges ii. I. § Judges vi. II—24. 


THE SON OF GOD. 69 


and his’ wife. That they recognized his divinity is 
evident from their words, ‘‘We shall surely die, 
because we have seen God;” “If Jehovah were 
_ pleased to kill us, he would not have received a burnt 
‘offering and a meat offering at our hands; neither 
would he have showed us all these things; nor would 
as at this time have told us such things as these.’? 

It was the same twofold being, created and un- 
created, who is addressed as “ God,” and to whom it 
is said, “‘thy God hath anointed thee.” ? 

» The “angel,’? or: “son of the gods,’ that ‘was. 
‘seen by Nebuchadnezzar walking with Shadrach, 
Meshach, and Abednego, in the furnace, was the 
same divine-human being, #e Son of God.® 

He it is who was David’s Lord and David’s son: 
David’s Lord because he was his creator and his God ; 
and David’s son “ according to the flesh,” as born of 
Mary. * 

It was this same Angel Jehovah, in his created 
nature the ozly begotten, first-begotten Son of God, 
who is termed by the apostle John “the Word,” 
who was “with God,” and who “was God,’ who 
“was in the beginning with God:”’ the eternal God, 
yet not with God from eternity, but only zz the be- 
ginning of things that had a beginning.’ * 

It is the same person who is denominated 
“Michael the archangel,’”’® + who contending with 


? 


1 Judges xiii. webs, xlva 6,7: 8 Dan, iii. 25, 28. 

PMathe xxi 46. 5 Jn. i, I—3. & Jude. ’o. 

*°“ Tn the beginning” ever denotes eternity. It is always used with 
reference to things that had a beginning, — to created beings and objects. 

+ Michael signifies “who is like God.” Writers of religious 


70 YEHOVAH-FESUS. 


the devil disputed about the body of Moses; and 
who was clearly a created. being, while at the same 
time he was the “ Jehovah” that buried Moses.! 
That this was Christ is plainly taught in the tenth 


chapter of Daniel, where the angel speaks of him to. 


Daniel as ‘‘ Michael your prince ,;”*? also in the 


twelfth chapter, where the second coming of Christ is 
the subject of the prophecy, and where the angel says, 
“At that time shall Michael stand up, THE GREAT 
PRINCE which standeth for the children of thy peo- 
ple: * and this can be none but the Lord Jesus Christ. 


He it was who laid aside the glory which he had ° 
with the Father “ before the world was ;”*—the 


‘son of man’? who came down from heaven, not to 
do his own will, —the will of a created being, which 
might differ from God’s will,—but the will of the 
Father that sent him;° who became flesh, and 
dwelt among men;° who became the son of David, 
by being born of Mary ;' in accordance with the 
words of Isaiah, who prophesied that he should be a 
child, a son, to “us,” yet “the Mighty God, the 
Everlasting Father.” ® , . 


poetry often speak of “archangels,” as though there were more than 
one. The Scriptures afford no warrant for this notion ; they never 
mention archangels ; they speak not of az archangel, but of ¢4e archangel 
— the first, the greatest, the chief angel, who is tke Son of God; called 
“the first of the princes,” (Dan. x. 13, marginal reading,) and who 
is mentioned as the leader and commander of the holy angels, 


(Rev. xii. 7.) 
4 Deut. xxxiv. 5, 6. oe MOON eK. 52 Te $ Dan. xii. 1: 
4 Jas Xvi 5: ; en. vis 38. 6 Jn. deta 


A Wreatteae ts 8 Isa. ix. 6. 


& 


THE SON OF GOD. ey: 


He it is, who, as man, ate, drank, walked, slept, 
prayed, was. tempted, suffered, died; and who, as 
God, by his own authority and power, healed the 
sick, raised the dead, cast out devils, stilled the 
_wind and the waves, knew men’s: thoughts, forgave 
~ sins, raised the man Christ Jesus from the dead, and 
is always with his followers, even unto the end of 
the world. | 

As God and man, the been Jesus Christ: — 
JEHOVAH-JESUS, — will. come again to this 
world, in like manner as his disciples saw him go into 
heaven, to punish his. incorrigible enemies and 
reward his friends, to bring all things and all created 
beings into subjection to himself, to judge the world 
in righteousness. 

No more needs to be said, to show that the 3 
Scriptures clearly and unquestionably teach the pre-. 
existent created Sonship of the Lord Jesus Christ, 
and that his divinity is that of God the Father. 7 

It necessarily follows, that there can be no 7rznzty 
of persons in the divine nature. Is there then a 
Duality — God the Father and God the Holy Spirit ?. 


VIIT.. 
Ture Hoy Spirit. 


ANY serious and inquiring Christians will, 
from the influence of early instructions and 
habits of thought, recoil from the very idea of eriter- 
taining the question, whether the commonly received 
views in regard to the separate personality of the 
Holy Spirit may not be erroneous, — whether the 
Scriptures may not, if rightly understood, teach a 


‘doctrine different from the one they have received, — © 


lest they should by so doing commit the Be aes 
ble sin. 

The unpardonable sin is “ viacohene nee ie 
Holy Ghost:”. dlasphemy, that is, speaking against, 
slander. Christ imputed this sin to those - who 
ascribed his words and his teachings to Beelzebub, — 


to’ the devil, when the works and teachings them- ; 


selves proved that they were from God. - A reveren- 
tial desire and effort to ascertain what the Scriptures 
teach, — to know and to make known God’s truth, 


as revealed in his word, can have nothing in it akin | 


to the unpardonable sin. 
The Bereans were commended for searching the 
Scriptures to ascertain for themselves whether the 


teachings of the inspired apostles were in accordance. 


‘THE HOLY SPIRIT. 1S 


therewith.’ We certainly cannot be wrong, if we 
conscientiously, candidly, prayerfully, search the 
Scriptures also, to learn whether the doctrines of 
uninspired teachers are “so.” If the uneducated 
Bereans were competent to investigate and decide 
_upon the correctness of the instructions they received, 
we who live in the light of the nineteenth century, 
may safely venture on the same path, if guided by 
the same standard, and influenced by the same 
motives. . 


The expressions, ‘‘ Holy Spirit,” “ Holy Ghost,” 
“Spirit. of God,” “the. Spirit,” are ‘commonly sup- 
posed by evangelical Christians to refer to a person-: 
ality in the Godhead distinct: from the Father and 
the Son, —to the “third person i inthe Trinity;”’ so 
called. 

Is this view correct? Is it in accordance with 
the teachings of the Scriptures ? 

We unhesitatingly answer, Vo. We hold that 
the Bible fairly and consistently interpreted, does 
~ not teach this doctrine; but that the truth on this 
. subject is as follows: 

ieee he terns Bey Spirit” is tien used as a 
name of the one only indivisible and undivided 
God; a name applied to him when especial refer- 
ence is had to his s#zrztual operations —as the illu- 
minator, the inspirer, the imparter of miraculous 
power, the sanctifier, the comforter; and where 
‘it is so used, the expression might: just as well have 


on 


1 ae vil re 


74 YEHOVAH-FESUS. 


been, “ God,” or “God the Father,” so far as the 
identification sf the person is concerned. . | 

2. The expressions, ‘‘ Holy Spirit,” ‘Spirit of 
God,” ‘“‘ His Spirit,” are often used when no person- 
ality is intended or implied, but the meaning ts sim- 
ply a divine spiritual influence, or the effect of such 
influence. 

3. There are a few passages of. Scripture in 
which “the Spirit’ is supposed to be represented 
as a personal being sent by God the Father. These, 
when rightly understood, are consistent with the 
absolute unity of the divine nature. The word ‘of 
God is consistent with itself. 


It is proposed to refer to a few representative 


texts illustrating each of the abové points. 


I.. THE HOLY SPIRIT A PERSON. 


That the terms “ Spirit,” “‘ Holy Spirit,” ‘‘ Holy 
Ghost,” often indicate a divine person, is evident from 
the following passages of Scripture, among others: — 

“Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the 
71 «The blasphemy against the Holy 
v 22° Tt awas 


wilderness. 
Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men. 


revealed unto him by the Holy Ghost.”? “The 


Holy Ghost shall teach you in the same hour what 
ye ought to say.”* “ Peter said, Ananias, why hath 


Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost ?7?*" 


“While Peter thought on the vision, the Spirit said 
unto him, Behold, three men seck thee, The 


1 Matt. iv. 1. 2 Matt: xii. 31. 8 Lk. iis 26. 
41k; xii, £2, 5 Acts Vv. 3. 6 Acts x. Ig. 


~~. a ere ee 


THE HOLY: SPIRIT. 75 


Holy Ghost said, Separate me ‘Barnabas and Saul 
for the work whereunto I have called them.’? 
_Agabus said, “Thus saith the Holy Ghost, So shall 
the Jews at Jerusalem bind the man that owneth 
‘this girdle.’*.-“That ye may abound in hope, 
through the power of the Holy Ghost.” * ‘That the — 
offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable, being 
sanctified by. the Holy Ghost.”* ‘ Which things 
also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom 
teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth.” * 


_ “Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the 


latter times some shall depart from the faith.” ° 
““Wherefore.as the Holy Ghost saith, To-day if ye 
will hear his voice, harden not your hearts.”’" 
“Holy men of God spake as they were moved by 
the Holy Ghost.” * 

-While these texts, and others like them, unques- 
tionably teach that there is a divine being properly 
called the Holy Spirit, they do zo¢ teach that he is 
in any. sense adistinct person from God the Father. 


II. A SPIRITUAL INFLUENCE. 


The terms in question are often used to denote 
a divine spiritual influence or power; as in the fol- 
lowing examples :— 7 

“Would God that all the Lord’s people were 
prophets, and that the Lord would put his Spirit * 


1 Acts xfil. 2. 2 Acts xxi, II. 3 Rom., xv. 13. 
4. Rom xv-Lo; or Cor i213. Gr. Time ive Ys 
T Heb, iii. 7, 8. $2 Pet.1..25. 


* The word “ Spirit” is often commenced with a capital letter by 


76 YEHOVAH. FESUS: 


upon them.”’ “And the Spirit of God came upon 
him.”* “ And the Spirit of God came upon Azariah 
the son of Oded.”* “Take not thy Holy Spirit 
from me.’’* “ Until the Spirit be poured upon us 
irom ‘on: high.*s*. “Behold my servant 22 #001 
have put my Spirit upon him.”* “TI will pour my 
Spirit upon thy seed.”" ‘The Spirit of the Lord 


God is upon me; because the Lord hath anointed | 
me to preach good tidings unto the meek.”*® “J .. 


will put my Spirit within you,.and cause you to walk 
in my statutes,”* “T will pour out my Spirit: upon 
all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall 
prophesy.” “ He shall baptize you with the Holy 


Ghost.” " “ David himself said by the Holy Ghost.” ® 


““He shall be filled with the Holy Ghost.” “He 
came by the Spirit into the temple.” * “ How much 
more shall your heavenly Father give the ‘Holy 
Spirit to them that ask him.” “God giveth not 
the Spirit by measure unto him.”* “ He breathed 
on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy 


Ghost.” " “And they were all filled with-the Holy - 


Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues.” ™ 
“Then laid they their hands on them, and they re- 
ceived the Holy Ghost.” “God anointed Jesus of 


the printers of our English Bible: this is man’s work, and is no proof 
that a person was intended by the inspired writers. 


1 Num.xi.29. 2? Num. xxiv: 2. Gro, COLON KV al: 
3. Ps) daetr UCB S od tee kay B se sx liipit, 

3 Isa cxtivese esa. Axio YT. 9 Ezk. xxxvi. 27. 
10. Joel it. 28. OVatt ui 11, #2 MK, Xi1.996, 

16 SKATE. aA ak. iba. PP Lk ox es 


36 Jn. 11.344 Rp Rowen ye 8 Actsii.g. 39 Acts viii. 17. 


—_ 


THE HOLY SPIRIT. °° je 


Nazareth with the Holy Ghost.’”* “ God, who hath 
also given unto us his Holy Spirit.”*  ‘‘ Them that 
have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy 
Ghost sent down from heaven 7 tee i Hor thespirit 
of God resteth upon you.” * | 
The import of these texts, and of others of simi- 
lag pier is mot that the Spirit that was “ put 
upon” or “put within” men, that was “poured 
_ out,” “ given,” “sent,” with which men are said to 
ber « filled, ” “ anointed,” ‘ baptized,”’—is-a distinct 
_ personality from God who gives, sends, pours out, 
the Spirit. The obvious meaning is, that God 
exerted a spiritual influence upon the-spirits of men, 
by way of sanctification, revelation, the conferring 
-of miraculous power, etc. 3 


Effect of Spiritual Influence.—The forms of ex- 
pression under consideration often have reference 
especially to the effect of divine spiritual influence, 
traits of character, intellectual or moral. This 
point and the preceding are so nearly allied, that it 
is difficult to classify the texts separately: but -this 
is not material. 

— 28 Can we find: such” a-onevas this. is, as man: ine - 
whom the Spirit of God is?” that is, a man who 
"possesses supernatural wisdom.’ “Thou shalt speak 
unto all that are wise-hearted, whom | have filled — 
with the Spirit of wisdom.”* “TI have filled him 
with the Spirit of God, in wisdom, and in under- 


~1 Acts x. 38. 2 1 Thess. iv. 8, Sit Petrin ta: 
Sask RES IV, Laem, Pema Cxens x11.-35, 6 Ex. SXxViil. 3 


78 _ , FEHOVAH-FESUS. 


standing, and in knowledge, and in all manner of 
workmanship:” that is, I have made him véry wise 
and skillful." “ And I will give them one heart, and 
I will put a new Spirit within you:” not a new 
spiritual personality, but a new moral. character. 


“Look ye out among you seven men of honest | 


report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom:” that 
is, men of eminent piety and good judgment.® 
“Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he 
is none of his:” that is, if he have not a similar 
moral character." “Ye have received the Spirit of 
adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father:” that is, 


a filial spirit, a filial: disposition.’ “Now we have. 


received, not the spirit of the world, but. the Spirit 
which is*of God:” that is, we have a holy moral 
character.’ ‘“ By pureness, by knowledge, by long 


suffering, by kindness, by the Holy Ghost, by love | 


unfeigned ;” “ by the Holy Spirit,” that is, by holi- 
ness of heart, a holy character." ‘““And because ye 
are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son 
into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father: ” that is, he 
has given you a filial disposition.* He has not sent 


the Holy Spirit, a divine person,-to reside in your . 


hearts, and to pray to him from thence. 

< Wherefore I put thee in remembrance, that 
_thou stir up the gift of God, which is in thee by the 
putting on of my hands.”* What was given by the 


putting on of the hands of the apostle? ‘The Holy 
Ghost.” Did Paul direct Timothy to “stir up” 


ord De ees or tne 8 SHE, XieXO: * Acts vi. 3. 4 Rom. viii. o& 
S Rome vill, 15/8847 Cor. 17. tan” 39 'Cor. vi. 6. 


S.Galiay, 6; 2, Line, Fo  cActs ville. 


OE a ee in 


THE HOLY SPIRIT. 79 


the personal divine Holy Ghost, residing in him, to 
activity? Or did he direct him earnestly and ac- 
tively to use the spiritual graces of intellect and of 
heart that God had given him, (the laying on of 
hands being merely a szgn of such gift,) for the con- 
version of sinners and the edification of saints? The 
question requires no categorical answer: stating it 
is sufficient. 

“And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by 
the Spirit which he hath given us:” that is, by our 
holiness of character, the result of God’s spiritual in- 
fluence! ‘“Heréby know we that we dwell in him, 
and he in us, because he hath given us of his Spirit :” 
because he has-exerted a spiritual influence upon us, 
-and made our moral character in some degree like 
his own. If the meaning is, that a personal divine 
‘spiritual being resides or dwells zz Christians more 
than in others, it means also that they personally 
dwell zz God, which is absurd. The true interpreta- 
tion of this and many similar passages, must be as 
above stated. _ 


ELE THE HOLY SPIRIT SENT. 


Ina few passages, not at first sight clearly belong- 
ing under either of the preceding heads, the Spirit is 
commonly thought to be represented asa distinct 
personal being, sent by God the Father or by the 
Lord Jesus Christ. We claim that this is not the 
correct interpretation of such texts, but that they 


PT Ajne 24: A et | Tgp BV es E Sp 


80 FEHOVAH-FESUS. 


are consistent with the unqualified absolute unity of 
the Godhead,—in harmony with the general teach- 
ings of the Scriptures in regard to the divine nature, 
as already shown. 

The mind of man is finite; God is infinite: it is, 
therefore, from the very nature of the case, impos- 
sible for man fully to comprehend God; and it is to 
be expected, that in making himself known to man, 
God would, and must, bring himself down to -the 
comprehension of mankind in general, and sometimes 
speak of things pertaining to himself and to his re- 
lations to mankind, not exactly as they are in a. 
strictly pi eon Poe of view, but as they 
would scem to men. 

It is on this principle that God is eta spoken 
of as possessing and acting through bodily cea 
like ourselves; as mouth, eyes, harids, arms, etc.) 

He is a'so Be nreceutel as having intellectual and 
moral characteristics like those of men. For exam- 
ple: he is said to have “repented” and-to-have 
been “ grieved ” that he had made man on the earth ‘ 
just as if he had not known in advance what: man’s 
moral character and conduct would be, and had been 
disappointed in his expectations.? He is saidto have 
come ‘‘down” to see the tower of Babel, and again 
to see whether the Sodomites were as wicked as had 
been represented to him; as if he were not omni- 
present and omniscient.” He is represented as 


1 Job xxxiv. 21; Ps, vii. 125 xi: 4; xxix. 4; civ. 3;. Jer. xxxii. 171 
Zeph. iil. 17 ; etc, etc. ‘ 
2 Gen, vi,26; * Gen. Xi) 5*<xvili;20, 21. 


ies HOLY SPIRIT. - * One 


repenting “& ‘of re evil which he thought to do unto 
his people ;”” as though he had altered his mind, and 
were achangeable being.’ God speaks to the Israel- 
ites of his ‘breach of promise,” when he condemned 
them to wander in the wilderness forty years; as if 

his word were not reliable.” Weare told that “God 
came unto Balaam,” that:he “ came from Sinai, and 
rose up from Seir;” as if he were not Clr te cans 

but went from place to’place.’ ; 

Now wedo not misunderstand any of these state- 
ments: we are not led by them to question the in- 
- finitude and perfection of the natural. and moral 
attributes of God. In all these instances, and in 
many others, God speaks of himself, or the inspired 
writers speak of him, after the manner of men. We 
must understand this language as figurative, or deny 
the perfections of God, and thus undeify him. We 
must interpret it in accordance with the general 
teachings of the Scriptures upon this subject. 

It is precisely so with the expressions referred to, 
regarding the sending of the Spirit. Itis difficult to 
conceive of God: as being in heaven, and yet among 
men; and in describing his spiritual operations upon 
their minds, instead of saying that he, God the 
Father himself, operates directly upon them, — mak- 
ing the impression upon their minds that he does 
this from a distance, or that he leaves heaven for the 


purpose, —- God sometimes speaks of sending his | | 


Spirit; that-is, the result is as 7f he sent a distinct 
spiritual being to influence them, and to be with 


1 Ex, xxxii.1g4. 2 Num.xiv. 34., 3 Num. xxii. 9; Deut. xxxiii. 2. . 


4® - 


82 GEHOVAH-FESUS. 


them. Oneor two passages will be referred to as 
representatives of a class. 

“The Holy Ghost was not yet given, pecatiser 
that Jesus was not yet glorified.”' Was not the 


Divine Spirit already in the world, with his miracu- . 


lous and sanctifying influences? Were there not 
pious men, lovers of God, in the world? Did notthe 
disciples, — not only the twelve, but the seventy, — 
work miracles? This giving of the Holy Ghost was 
not the sending into the world of a being not therein 
already, but. a more abundant exercise of God’s 
miraculous and sanctifying influences than had been 
experienced in the world’s history; and this was not 
to take place until Jesus was “glorified.” _ 

In Christ’s conversation with his disciples at the 
last supper, he promised to pray to the Father to 
send them “ another Comforter,” and told them that 
“the Comforter, the Holy Ghost,” whom the Fa- 
ther would send in his name, should teach them all 
things, that hé would testify of him, and abide with 
them forever.” His meaning could zot have been, 
that a divine person would come to them who had 
not been before present; for this would involve a 
denial not only of their possession of any true love 
to him, but of the existence of any true religion in 
the world, as well as of the perfection of the attri- ~ 
butes of God. ‘What then is the true explanation? © 

The disciples did not fully appreciate the charac- 
ter of ‘Christ as the only living God: they were 
accustomed to come to the man Jesus with their 


1 Jn. vii. 39.. - SRLS Fite oh iAp. 9'6 


THE HOLY SPIRIT. 7 83 


' troubles, and to look to him for comfort and aid and 

instruction. As long as he should be present with 
them as a man, they would not realize his divine 
‘character, and come to him as God, for the supply 
of their spiritual wants. It was therefore necessary 
that the man Jesus should leave them,:that they 
might be led to feel their depéndencé upon God. 
The connection. shows conclusively, that he did not 
intend to teach that they would enjoy any ‘other -di- 
. vine presence than they had done. The difference 
was to be one of degree of divine influence, not of 
kind; and upon the degree of their realization of 
their needs, and of their trust in God to supply them, 
would depend their enjoyment of God and of his 
spiritual blessings. ? 

Jesus said, “I will pray the Father, and he 
shall give you another Comforter, even the Spirit of 
truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it 
seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know: 
him, for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you:” 
he wow dwelleth with you, and shall continue so to 
do. Again he says, “I will not leave you comfort- 
less: J will come to you:” J will be your Com- 
forter:.the Comforter is not a different person, but 
Imyself, in my divine nature. Again: ‘“ Ifaman 
love me, he will keep my words ; and my Father will 
love him, and we will come unto him, and make our 
abode with him.” It appears that the Father, the 
Spirit, and Christ himself, were. each to come to 
them, and abide with them. The Comforter was 
not to be one of these only, but each of them, all of 


84 , YEHO VAM. JESUS. 


them. The fair inference is simply this, that each 
of these is the only indivisible and undivided God, 
in all his fullness, as Creator and King, Redeemer 
‘and Savior, Sanctifier and Comforter ; — not in-any 
sense three divine persons, but one only, under 
' different names. ane Bake | 

If the divine being subsists in three persons, 
each of these must, if God at all, possess all the 
attributes of divinity. Each of them must therefore ~ 
be present in all places at all times; and there can 
be no possibility or necessity that one of these 
persons should send another of them to a point 
where he is not already present. If either one pos- 
_sesses all ‘divine attributes, —that‘is, if he is God, — - 
the existence of the others is superfluous. 

The. only interpretation consistent with the in- 
finity and perfections of God, of those passages of 
Scripture which represent God as sending his Spirit, 
as going or coming here or there, as dwelling in men, 
etc., is simply that they indicate influence. God is 
Gatrescnited as ‘being present in one place rather than 
in another, or as sending his Spirit to a particular - 
place, simply and solely because his presence is there 
manifested, his influence is there put forth: the effect 
is as tf God the Father sent another being to. exert 
that influence, to produce that manifestation; but 
the work is actually done by the omnipresent and 
omnipotent Father himself —the one infinite God. 


EX, 
JPRINETY- OMITTED, 


F the commonly received “ doctrine of the Trin- 
ity”? is true, and.as important as it is claimed 

to bé,-it seems. as if the writers of the New Testa- 
ment, being inspired men, would have made it so 
prominent and stated it so clearly, that there could 
not possibly be any misunderstanding upon the sub- 
ject: at 
So far from this being the case, we generally find 
no allusion even to the Holy Spirit, in those very 
instances where we would most. naturally and rea-. 
sonably look for a clear and full statement of the 
nature of the Divine Being,—where we might expect ‘ 
to find a distinct mention of all the persons in the 
Godhead. “God the Father and the Lord. Jesus 
Christ,” (wot “‘ God the Son,”’) is a common expres- 
sion in such circumstances, —‘‘God the Holy 
Spirit,” * or “ the Holy Spirit,” not being mentioned. 
Was this omission an oversight. on the part of thes 
inspired writers, or was it intentional ?, Has it any 


* “ God the Holy Spirit,’ an expression common in our religious 
literature—and unobjectionable in itself, as a name of the infinite 
God,—is not Scripture language. It may have been intentionally 
avoided, for the very purpose of precluding the supposition of a plu- 

-rality of divine persons, ‘ 


86 S¥EHOVA H. FESUS. 


significance? ‘We think it was intentional, and that 
it has an important significance. 

In the salutations with which many of the 
epistles are commenced and concluded, we repeat- 


edly find such language as this: “Grace to you, and - 
peace, from God our Father and the Lord Jesus 
Christ ;”” “Grace, mercy, and peace, from God our. 


Father and Jesus Christ our Lord.”? In invoking 
spiritual blessings upon the Christians addressed, 
why did the apostle: say nothing of the “ Holy 
“Spirit,” whose especial province it is supposed to be 
to confer spiritual blessings? Evidently because the 
blessings to be bestowed by “God our Father and 
the Lord Jesus Christ,” comprehended all that could 
be bestowed by God, either directly as God alone, 
or through the mediator between God and man, 
Christ Jesus. : , 

In several other Rescaaes the names of God, or 
God the Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ, are 
coupled together, where it would seem that the 
Holy Spirit should have been mentioned ee, if 
there is such a distinct personality. 

“To us there is but one God, the Father, 
and one Lord Jesus Christ.”* ‘Paul, an apostle, 
not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, 
and God the Father, who raised him from the 
dead.” * ‘The mystery of God, even of the Father 


Ts ROMA Tp aE GOT, 143.¢-2 Cor.inas Galiins Eph:t.'2 > and 
vi. 23; Phil. i. 2; Col. i.2; 1 Thess. i,t; 2 Thess, i.2; 2 Tim. i2 
2 Tami, 2° Titus Oy Ra Philemon Be ONT ko. 

2.1 Cor.-yiii? 6, 2 Gal. Aegis 


TRINITY OMITTED. : 87 


and of Christ ;” or, as the Sinaitic and Alexandrian 
copies have it, ‘God the Father of Christ.”* No 
“mystery of the Trinity ”’ here. 
“ Now God himself, even * our Father, and our 
Lord Jesus Christ, direct our way unto you.”? “ The 
church of the Thessalonians in God our Father and 
the Lord Jesus Christ.’’* ‘An apostle of Jesus 
Christ by the commandment of God our Savior and 
Lord Jesus Christ.” * “1 charge thee. before God 
and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the elect angels, that 
_ thou observe these things.” °: ““Ye are come... 
to God the Judge of all, . . . and to Jesus the medi- 
ator of the new covenant.” ® “ Truly our fellowship 
is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ.” ” 
Do not.Christians have fellowship with the Holy | 
Spirit? Then why is his name omitted here? ° 
Clearly because all divine fellowship is provided for. 
“ He is Antichrist, that denieth the Father and the — 
Son. ‘Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath 
not the Father; but he that acknowledgeth the Son, 
hath the Father also.” *® “Ye also shall continue in 
the Son, and in the Father.) “iHe-that abideth 
in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father 
and the Son.” “Jude ... to those who are sanc-. 


* The Greek word az, generally translated ee and properly so, . 
also frequently signifies even, which latter i is undoubtedly the correct 
rendering in this instance. 


PAColiity. 2: ‘ ss 2 ox Thess. iii, rt. 
SE ad 5S Oa ois 4°10 im. i. 1. 

1 Tim. Vv. 21.; 2 Tim. iv. I, 6 Heb. xii, 22-24. 
ae Jnet 3s Sore Viet c29 235 

9 


I Jn; ii. 24. 12a) TOs 


88 | SEHOVAL- 7 US. 


tified by God the Father, ad preserved in Jesus 
Christ, and called.” * 

The omission in all these places of” any allusion 
to a‘ third’’ person, is unaccountable on any sup- 
position consistent with the maintenance of the doc- 
-, trine in question. 

In a number of the closing salutations of the 
epistles, the Lord Jesus Christ a@/one is mentioned ; 
thus: ‘The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with 
you.s 74 The ae of our Lord: Jesus. Christ be 
with your spirit.” * See also the close of the epistle 
to the Philippians, both epistles to the Thessalonians, 
the second to Timothy, and: that to Philemon. If 
“the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ” comprises all 
spiritual blessings, because his divinity is that. of 
God in -all his fullness, then the benediction is a 
proper one: if his divinity is merely that of “God ~ 
the Son;’—God the Father and God the Holy 
Spirit being. distinct personalities and being ex- 
cluded, —then the blessing -is radically deficient. 
Paul could not have intended anything less than the | 
AU eres ct divine blessing. © 


1 Jude I. ? I Cor. xvi. 23. 3 Gal. vi. 18. 


X. 
ERINELY EXGLUDED. 


HERE are some notable passages in the New 
Testament, that seem to have been written 
with an especial intention to teach the absolute un- 
qualified unity of the divine nature, and to exclude 
‘ any adverse theory. 

In writing to the Corinthians in regard to meats 
offered, to idols, Paul says, “‘We know that an idol 
* is nothing in the world, and that there is none other 
God but one. For though there be that are called 
gods, whether in heaven or in earth, as there be gods . 
many,. and lords many, but to us there is but one 
God, THE FATHER, of whom are all things, and we in 
him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all 
things, and we by him.”*. Paul seems to have. in- 
tended to announce the truth in regard to the nature 
- of the true God, as’ in contrast with idols. . Here 
was the appropriate occasion’. to state that truth ex- 
-plicitly and fully, that there might be no possibility 
of mistake. If he had omitted. the explanatory : 
words, “Lhe Father,” there might have been room 
for the supposition’ that he simply intended to 
assert the unity of the true God as in contrast with 


Y 1) Cor: viii..4-6: 


90 FEHOVAH-FESUS. 


the multitude of false gods, without alluding to the 
trinity in that unity. But the insertion of these 
two defining words entirely precludes any such sup- 
positron. He evidently intended to assert, and 
unmistakably did assert, the absolute unqualified 
unity of the.Divine Being; that the true God is “ the 
-Father,”.and the Father on/y. If this had not been 
his intention, he would have said, ‘“‘ In unity of the - 
Godhead there be three persons, of one substance, 
power, and eternity; God the Father, God the Son, 
and God the Holy Ghost;” or something to the 
same purport. - But this doctrine of the Trinity had 
not then been discovered: it was for ‘‘ the fathers 
of hundreds of years afterward, to find that they 
were wiser than the inspired apostle. 

‘In writing to the Colossians, Paul uses this lan- 
guage: “ Whereof 1 am made a minister, according . 
to the dispensation of God which is. given to me for 
you, to fulfill [¢. e. fully to preach *] the word of — 
God; even the mystery which hath been hid from 
ages and from generations, but now is made mani- 
fest to his saints: to whom God would make known 
what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among - 
the Gentiles; which [the mystery] is Christ in -you 
the hope of glory.”* The “mystery” which he was — 
sent ‘‘fully to preach,’ was not “the mystery of’ 
the Trinity,” but ‘‘ Christ in you the hope of glory.” 
This will further appear as we read on: “For. I 
would that ye knew what great conflict. [care, 
anxiety] I have for you, and for them at Laodicea, . 


* Marginal reading in our common Bible. ? Col, i, 25-27. 


tee 


TRINILY EXCLUDED. Ol: 


and.for as many as have not seen my face in the 
flesh; that their hearts might be comforted, being 
knit together in love, and unto all riches of the full 
assurance of understanding, to the acknowledgment 
of the mystery of God, even of the Father, and of 
Christ ; in whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom 
and knowledge.”* The apostle enlarges his. defini- 
tion of the mystery he was commissioned to preach: + 
“The mystery of God; even of the Father, and of 
Christ.” But he knows no Trinity: he recognizes 
no God but “the Father:” the God who “was in 
Christ, reconciling the world unto himself.” * The. 
whole ‘“ mystery of God’ is comprehended in “ God 
even the. Father.” and.“ Christ.” * And in Christ 
“are hid a// the treasures of wisdom. and knowl- 
edge.” A// divinity is in him: not a part only, but 
the whole—even God the Father, God in all his - 
fallness.. “For in him dwelleth all the fullness of 
the Godhead bodily. And ye are complete in him, 
which is the head of all principality and power.” * 
This language is very explicit.. If there is a Trinity 
of divine persons, the divine nature of Christ must 
comprehend the whole, — must include God the 
Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost ; for 
Paul informs us that “in him dwelleth a// the full- 
ness of the Godhead;” that he is “the head of all 
principality and power.” Neither of these state- 


* The reading of the Sinaitic and Alexandrian MSS. is, “Fhe 
mystery of God the Father of Christ.” No “ mystery of the ‘Trinity ” 


a here. 


2 Cols i t4. af w gear Oot yeloss.. 3 Col. ii. 9, 10: 


Q2. ; % FEHOVAH-FESUS. 


ments could be true if he were “merely “God the 
Son,” a subordinate divine ‘person. This passage 
can be consistently interpreted only on the ground 
of the absolute unqualified unity of God. 

Again, in writing to Timothy, Paul seems. still to 
have been ignorant of this “doctrine of the Trinity,” 
for -he says, “ For there is one God, and one medi- 
* ator between God and men, the maz Christ Jésas?7"7 
In asserting the unity of God, the apostle evidently 


intended to. exclude the supposition that there was . 
any distinction of divine persons ; for he is careful: 


to qualify the name of Christ by the word “ man.” 
Surely here was the proper place to mention all the 
persons concerned in the-work of redemption; here 
was the appropriate occasion clearly to assert and 
teach the doctrine of the Trinity, if true; but it 
seems to be designedly and carefully excluded. . 
~ Jn his epistle to the Ephesians, the same apostle 
directs them ‘to give “ thanks always for all things 
unto God, EVEN the Father, in the name of our Lord 
Jesus Christ.” * Why did he not direct them to give 
thanks to God the Son for redemption, and to. God 
_ the Holy Spirit for sanctification and other spiritual 
blessings ? Clearly, because when he had named God 
the Father; he had named the-giver of a// blessings, 


—the: only divine person. And he seems to ies 


designed to be so understood; for he carefully ex- 
cludes any other divine peer by the qualification, 
“even the Father.” 

A plurality of divine persons is Welcarie excluded 


1 y Tim. ii. 5. 2 Eph. v.20. ¢ 


TRINITY EXCLUDED. 03 


again and again, by the use, in defining the Godhead, 
of the qualifying term just referred to, “ even the 
Bather,> or the Pather,’7.‘.Glorify>.God, even-the 
_ Fathet of our Lord Jesus Christ.’’"*: “ The will of 
God even -ourslather:** -‘Ehe* God: of olinslord 
Jesus Christ, the Father of glory.” * ‘Now unto 
God, even our Father, be glory forever and ever.” * 
‘And whatsoever -ye do in word or deed, do.all in 
the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God, 
even the Father, by him.”*® ‘In the sight of God, 
even our Father.”° ‘-Now God himself, even our 
Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, direct our way 
unto you.”” ‘Before God, even our. Father.” 
““Now our Lord Jesus Christ himself, and God, even 
OU bathers 205i ce 2. comfort your) hearts. * 
“ Pure religion and undefiled before God, even the 
Father, is this.” !”  “ Therewith bless we God, even 
the Father.”" “ And hath made us kings and Beet 
unto God, even his Father.’ | 

St In the face of this so clear and so positive defini. 
" tion of the Godhead, again and again repeated, we 
have no right to interpolate an additional and con- 
tradictory definition, and claim that the apostles 
should’.have said, “ God, evem the Father, Son, and 
_ Holy Ghost.” 


* Even is mnanicey the correct sah eae of the original i in the. 
texts here referred to. See note, page 87.. 
PAR OMX Or, 2) Coren, Rand: x1,°3F 3 Ephatdts 3 t Pet. oF 


a -Galt te 4 i Siphe ie 17: eet Pha civ 20% 
> Colvin, 17. Pe theses 12°35) 11 Thess. iii. 11. 
8 x Thess. iii. 13. -~ 9 2 Thess. ii. 16; . 1° Jase 1.27. 


11s Jase 16, LDA RCN A kT of 


04 . JEHOVAH-FESUS. 


We find other instances where the language used 
clearly implies the existence of but one erine per- 
son—a God of absolute unity. 

The teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ himself 
are inconsistent with any plurality or trinity of di- 
vine persons. - “ No one * knoweth the Son, but the 
- Father.”' If the Holy Spirit is another divine 
person, he must be omniscient, and must know :. in 
_ that case, Christ could not have used. this ee 

Again he: says, ‘of that day and hour no one* 
knoweth; not the angels which are in heaven, 
neither the Son, but the Father.’? Then must the 
Father be the only: divine person. Christ said to 
the Jews, “No man can come to me, except ‘the 
Father which hath sent me draw him.”* We are. 
commonly taught that it is the special work of the 
Holy Spirit to ‘draw’ men to Christ. But Christ 
ascribes this work to the Father, and restricts it to 
him alone. © In his last prayer with his disciples, ad- 
dressing the “ Father,” he says, “This is life eternal, 


that they might know thee, the only-true God, and 


Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent. ie the sathen 
is the only true God, no place is found for a second - 
divine person, nor fora third. 

The apostle Paul tells’ the eauintitne bs The 
things of God no one * knoweth, but the Spirit of - 
God.”’* Consequently,-“ the Spirit” is the only di- 
‘vine person, and there can be no Trinity. | 


* Correct translation: the word “man” is not in the original. 
1 Matt. xi, 27. 2 Mk. xiii. 32. 4 ering Wid. 
4 Jn. xvi 1,3. Die SRS lt CORSA ska 


TRINITY EXCLUDED. 95 


The same ee defines -‘ the Lord,” to whom 
Israel shall yet turn, as ‘“ that. Spirit, mathe Lorctne 
Spirit,”** recognizing .no other divine person to 
whom they should turn;. using this term simply as 
an appropriate name of the one God. | 

Again, he restricts all divinity to the Lord Jesus 
Christ; styling him “the blessed -and oz/y Poten- 
‘ tate,” as the one “ who,on/y hath immortality.” 

We thus find all divinity restricted in turn to the 
Father, to the Lord Jesus Christ, to. the Spirit ; in 
each case all other beings and persons being posi-— 
tively excluded. The solution is, that the one God, 
in all his fullness, undivided and indivisible, is repre- 
sented by each of these terms. They represent not 
three divine persons, but ove only. 

In Paul’s address before the court of RSs 
at Athens,* he professed to declare to the Athenians 
the true God, in distinction from their multitude of 
- idols. “But he does not mention or allude to a divine 
Trinity. Why not, if such were the truth? If the 
truth, here certainly was an eminently proper occa- 
sion to announce it. We must conclude that-he 
knew no such thing to be truth. 

In his address to the elders of the. church at 
Ephesus, he claimed that. he had not shunned. to 
_declate unto them “all the counsel of God.” * In all. 
- his writings, in declaring the nature of the true God, 
he ‘plainly taught that ‘“‘there is one God,”’® that 


* Last clause of v.18, marginal reading. 
1 2 Cor, iii. 16-18. * x Tim. vi. 14-16. 3 Acts xvii, 22-31. 
4 Acts Xis 27) Biy Tim. tin 5. 


96. EHO VAH-FYESUS. 


there is “one God, the Father ;”' he never asserts 
a divine Trinity: And he Brahebly did not ha! 
any important truth that he did not wrzze. 


aie chine and example of Christ and his 
apostles in regard to prayer, imply the absolute. 
unity of God, and exclude a Trinity of divine 
persons. | . 

If there is each’ a being as J5 God the Son,” who 
is not the Father, and anothér divine person “God 
- the Holy Spirit,” each must possess all the attri- 
butes and prerogatives of divinity ;- and it is not only. | 
right and proper, but it is duty, to pray to each. 
And many Christians, accepting the dogma of the. 
Trinity as an essential article of faith, do so pray. 
But there is not a single direction in the entire 
Bible, to pray to any other being than God the — 
Father; and no recognition of any other divine per- 
son as a proper object of prayer.” 

Jests taught that “(the Father.” is the proper 
object of worship. ‘After this manner ‘therefore 
pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven.” sae Bult 
the hour cometh, and now is, when the true wor- 
shipers shall worship the Father in spirit and in 
truth.’?? “And in that day .ye shall ask me noth: . 
ing. Verily, verily, I say unto you, whatsoever ye 


——_——. 


* The last words of the martyr Stephen, (Acts vii. £9,) cannot. be 
considered as a prayer to Christ as a distinct divine person. He saw 
him in human form, recognized his divinity in that humanity, and ad- 
dressed him as God, asking the performance of an act of divine power. 
The word “ God” is not in the original. . \ 

1 t Cor. viii. 6. * Matt. vi. g. al Penh eee 


TRINITV EXCL UDED. ' 97 


shall ask. the Father in ‘my name, he will’ Rive 
A mayou 

_ Jesus himself Eee es to the Father Ciel Nanerere 
thank thee,.O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, 
because thou hast hid these things from the wise and , 
prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes.” ? In his 
prayer recorded in the seventeenth chapter of John’s 
gospel, he addresses the Father repeatedly, recogniz- 
ing him as the source of all spiritual blessings; he 
addresses and récognizes no other divine person. 
In these hours of suffering he needed all the divine 
aid possible,—that of all the persons in the Godhead, 
were there more than one. We are taught in these - 
days that it is our duty to pray to ¢hree divine per-_ 
sons. Ought we to follow such instructions? or 


shall we imitate and obey him who “taught as hav- - | 


ing authority,”—him who knew .all things, and 
knew to whom prayer should be offered? Shall we, 
in this, obey man; or God? ; 
Paul says: “ For this cause I bow my knees 
unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ; ° * and 
directs the Colossians ‘to give “ thanks to. God « even 
the Father.”* The prayer of the disciples, after the 
healing of the cripple and the subsequent. persecu- 
tion, was addressed to God the Father.’ 
As we can find no warrant, by way of instruction 
or example, for Prayer to any te person except 


ep elny xvie 23s 
® Matt. xi. 25. ~ (See also, Mk. xiv. Hes Lk. XXi1; 42°: and XXlil, 
34, 46; Jn. xii. 27, 28; and’ch. xvii.-entire.) 
3 ple tay 142 aes Cole iit, ae, 


Br Axetse 1V: 24-30 ; Gace last lange of V v. 30.) 


98 _- FEHOVAH-FESUS. 


God the Father, the conclusion is inevitable, that he 
is the only proper object of worship—the only God. 
We repeat; that—vhere ts not a single passage in 
the entire, Bible, whose SUBJECT ts the divine nature, 
that gives the least countenance to the notion of a 
plurality of divine persons. All such passages assert 
and teach the absolute oneness of God. ; 


XI. 


WORKS OF THE SPIRIT ASCRIBED TO THE 
FATHER AND TO CHRIST. 


THE testimony that has been thus far pre- 

sented, ought to be sufficient to convince any 
~ candid seeker after truth, of the correctness of the © 
positions hérein maintained,—of their accordance 
with the'teachings of the-Scriptures.. But it may 
not be amiss to adduce the evidence furnished by 
another class of texts: those which ascribe to God. 
the Father or to the Lord Jésus Christ, dzrectly, the 
offices and works which are commonly supposed — 
to belong especially to the Holy Spirit as the third 
person in the Trinity : termed, in theological phra- 
- seology, his “ office-work.” This apparent confu- 
sion is reducible to order, only on the ground that 
these are all the work of one and the self-same di. 
vine Spirit,—the one infinite and therefore’ indivisi- 


ble God. 


Inspiration and Revelation.—< Flesh and blood 
hath not revealed:it unto thee, but my Father which 
is in heaven.”’?.«‘‘In: that hour Jesus. rejoiced in 
‘spirit, and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of 


+ Matt. xvi. 17. 


106). yEHOV VAH- FESUS. 


heaven and earth, that thou hast hid eee things 
from the wise and’ prudent, and hast revealed them 
mato babes.’ *.‘* It. pleased, God. x. 10 reveal 
his Son in me,” That, the.God of our Lord 
Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto 
you the ‘spirit of- wisdom and revelation in the 
knowledge of him.’’* - “ God, who, at sundry times_ 
and in-divers manners, spake in time past unto the 
prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by 
his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, 
by whom also- he made the worlds.’ * God the 
Father, who appointed the Son heir of all things, 
and who made the worlds, is the divine person who 
spoke by the prophets,—the Spirit who inspired. 
them. “I thank my God always on ‘your behalf, 
for the grace of God which is given you by Jesus 
Christ, that in everything ye are enriched by him, 
in all.utterance and in all knowledge. 2 EOL Be 
neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, 
but by the revelation of Jesus.Christ.”* (‘He that 
descended, is the same also that ascended up tar 
above all heavens, that he might fill all things. And 
he gave some apostles, and some prophets, and 
some evangelists, and some pastors and féachers.”’ ‘ 
It was Christ that made the revelations to John in 
the isle of Patmos,” and yet the message is called, 
“what the Spirdt saith unto the churches.” * Is 
there any contradiction here? No. Why not? 


1 Lk. x. 21. ¢ Gali is, 16: ot 8) Eph say 
Ape b iis, Ts 2a boy Cor, 4:4, 5: 6. Galy i. 12: 
1 Eph. iv. 10, I1.. 5 Revol. a, 10: 9 Reva ied £301 75°29. 


WORKS OF ChE (SHIRT T, a Gee 


Because the divine being tefmed “the Spirit,” is 
the divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ,— the one 
God. ee ee NE eT 


- Conversion: —“ No man can come to me, except 
the Father, which hath sent me, draw him.’”’’ 
“Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made 
us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the 
saints in light ; who hath delivered us from the power 
of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom 


_» of hig dear Som.” “ Blessed be the God and Father 


of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according-to his 
abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively 
hope by thé resurrection.of Jesus Christ from the 
dead.” * - Every good gift and every perfect eift is 
from above, and eon down from the Father of 
lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow 
of turning. Of his own will begat he us with the 
word of truth. a 


Sanctification.— Christ prayed to the Bother for 
his disciples, that he would “ sanctify” and “ keep” 
them.® Paul wrote thus: “Blessed be the God and 
Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed 
us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places 
_ [things].in Christ ; according as he hath chosen us 

in him before the foundation of the world, that we 
should be holy and without blame before him in 


love.” ® Paul ascribes this work to Christ: ‘“‘ Wait- 


TS ins Vis 44. 2COl fare, LS, 81 Petr t.ag: 
ORAS, ets, ES. ,” [osxvil.-Eib1,.17-  Ephig3r4: 


102 ; YEHOVAL- FESUS 


ing for the coming of our tera Jesus Christ, who 
‘shall also confirm you unto the end, that ye may be 


_ blameless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ.’’? 


Again: “ But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of _ 
God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and~ — 
‘sanctification, ‘and’ redemption.”* Again, in the 
epistle to Titus, we read, ““Our Savior Jesus Christ, 
who gave himself for us, that he: might redeem us 
from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a pecuilar. 
people, zealous of good works.” ® 7 


The Civerien a: Blessed be God, even the 
Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mer- 
cies, and the God of allcomfort.”* In another place 
the apostle attributes this office also to Christ: 
“ Now our Lord Jesus.Christ himself, and God, even 
our Father, which hath loved us, and hath given us 
everlasting consolation and good hope through grace, 
comfort your hearts, and stablish you in every’ good 
word and work.” * 


_ Indwelling in the hearts of saints is usually sup- 
posed to be the especial work of the Holy Spirit, 
But in the New Testament we find it attributed to 
God the Father, to the Holy Spirit, and to the Lord 
Jesus Christ, indiscriminately. ! 

“God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk 
in them, ... and I will be a Father unto you, and_ 
ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord 


TE GOr.'1., 7,08 2 verse 30. eee e Lath Seatol3 as 
4-2 Cori. 3; 4. S92" Thess, 11? 16,17. 


WORKS OF THE SPIRIT. Pe kO 


Almighty.”* “One God and Father of all, who is 
-above all, and through all, and in you all.” ’ 

“If Christ be in you, the body is dead because 
of sin.”* ‘Know ye not your own selves, how that 
‘Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?””’* 
“Christ liveth in me.’*®. Christ claims indwelling as 
his own work: “At that.day ye shall know anne. i 
am’ in my Father, and ye in me,and [in you.’ Se 
«Abide in me, and I im you.’’" 

*~ Know ye not that the Spirit ‘of God agelern 
in you?”® “Know ye’ not that your body is the 
-temple of the Holy Ghost ?”” 

3 If God the Father, God the Son, and God. the 
_ Holy Spirit, are each of them. perfect God, (and this 
each of. them must. be, or else not be God at all;) 
then each of them is omnipresent, and each of ‘them. 
must of necessity be as truly and as ‘fully present ‘in 
the hearts of saints,.and everywhere else, as either 
ofthe others. It-is the work of.the one indivisible 
divine Spirit. 

What: is this indwelling ?—the dwelling of. fend 
the Father, or of the Spirit, or of Christ, i in the 
saints? It is xot especially a personal residence ,; for 
God, as a spirit, is, in all the fullness of the divine 
nature, present everywhere at all times. -It zs the 
exertion of a spiritual influence upon the hearts of 
men, that: produces a likeness of moral character to 
that of God —the continuance of such influence, — 


a2 Oot. Wie ts: 2" Fh: iv. 63; «~ 02 Rom, vili./10, 
P | 
J: 2% OV. Sila 53 “8* Gal ii. 203 Gd vce ohare ge pe 
RE [nn KVea4. 871 Gora ii: 10, 'E Cor.-viv £9: 


104 |  “YRHOVAH-FESUS. 


| resiffting ultimately i in perfect neuaees of heart and. 

mite.” | 
This will be evident, upon an examination of the 
Scriptures bearing upon this subject. This is obvi- | 
ously the correct interpretation of Christ’s language 
to his disciples, and his prayer, recorded in the. 
- fourteenth chapter of John, and chapters following. 
“T amin my Father, and ye in me, and I in you.”' 
“ Abide in me,and I in you. ue. MT hat-they allmay, 
be one: as thou, Father, art in me, and I in ehee 
that they also may be one in us.”* 

Paul explains the matter thus: “ Tet Ghisiat 
may dwell in your hearts by faith; that ye, being 
rooted and grounded zz love, may be able to com- 
prehend with all saints what is the breadth, and - 
length, and depth, and height ; and to know the love 
of Christ, which passeth knowledge, that ye might 
be filled with all the -fullness of God.”* The be- 
- loved disciple bears similar testimony: “ If we love 
one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is-‘per- . 
fectedin us. Hereby know we that we dwell in ee 
and he in us, because he hath given us of his Spirit :’ 
that is, a spirit of holy love. ‘ Whosoever shall con- 
fess that Jesus isthe Son of God, God dwelleth 
in him, and he in God, _‘God*is love; and he that. 
dwelleth in love, dwelleth in God, and God in him.”® 

The saints do not dwell’ zz God, personally ; 
neither does God dwell personally in them, more 
than. elsewhere. This mutual indwelling can be 
An: K1ve 20, = AID. RY. A: rig eae Ae 
4 Eph. ili. 17-19. PVT si 1V) 02, TRE Spylom 


WORKS OF THE SPIRIT. 103 


nothing but a likeness of character, produced by 
the influence of the one BILE Spirit, by whatever 
name designated. 

- It may be well to add here, that the indwelling 
of God in Christ. was not merely the same as his 
dwelling in other men. It was this, and more. 
“God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto him- 
self.” * This could not be said of any divine dwell- 
ing in the’ saints, the apostles’ and _ prophets. 
Neither is God one with the’saints as with Jesus ; 
who, when he wished to assert his divine unity with 
the: Patiier,” said,“ thé Father isé m ene, and. Pin 
him.’ ?-** Tam inthe Fathér; andthe Fathérin me.” * 

God exists in, and manifests himself through, all 
created beings; but in different modes and in differ- 
_ent degrees. He-dwells and acts in a// creatures by 
virtue of his omnipresence and universal agency. 
He dwells and acts in his saints, by acting upon 
their wills, and inclining them to right actions. 
He dwelt and acted in and through the prophets 
and apostles, by inspiring them with miraculous 
knowledge of divine truth, and by working miracles 
through them. He took up his abode in the Lord 
Jesus Christ, not only in all these modes, but also 
in such a manner-as to render it proper for Jesus to 
assume divine powers and. prerogatives as his own, 
and for others to ascribe such to him. In the words 
of a distinguished writer,* “‘ God is obviously able 


Meu onevielG: z Jn. SIERO S S 3 Jn. xiv. I0, IT. 
* Rev. Henry P. Liddon, in Bampton Lectures on the Divinity 
of the Lord Jesus Christ, Lecture V. p. 265. 


106 YEHOVAH. YESUS. 


to create a being who will ey him perfectly and 
of necessity, as expressing his perfect image and 
likeness before his creatures. All nature points to 
such a being as its climax and consummation.” | 

Such a being is the Lord Jesus Christ, in his’. 
threefold character of God, Son of God, Son of man. 


We cite also in this connection a few instances 
in which Christ’s divine parentage and mission and 
works are ascribed to both the Holy Spirit and God 
the Father; the necessary inference from which 
seems to be, that there is no distinction of personal- 
ity between them. 

The angel Gabriel said to Mary, “The Holy 
Ghost shall come upon thee, . . . . therefore 
also that holy thing that shall be born of thee shall 
be called the Son of-God.”* The angel also said to 
Joseph, ‘that which is conceived in her is of the | 
Holy Ghost.’”.? Was the Lord Jesus Christ the son 
of the Holy Ghost, and not of God the Father? Or 
is the Holy Ghost the same person as God the 
Father ? 

In Christ’s sermon at Nazareth: he says, “ The 
Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath 
anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he 
hath sent me to heal the broken-hearted,” * etc. On 
another occasion he says, “ He that honoreth not 
the Son, honoreth not the Father. which hath sent 
him.”* When he ascribed his mission to “ the Spirit 
of the Lord,’ did he refer to a different personality — 


Lk. 13/38: 2 Matt. i. 20.  % Lk. iv. 18, 19. 4 Jn. v. 23.. 


WORKS- OF JHE: SPIRIT. 107 


from God the. Father? Or did he have reference to 
the divifie spiritual influence from the Lord. Jehovah, 
from the Father, that rested upon him, —the man 
Christ Jesus, who as a man needed this influence as 
truly as do other men? Clearly the latter. 

_ The Scribes and Pharisees attributed the miracles 
of Christ to Beelzebub dwelling in and working 
through him, saying, “ He hath an unclean ‘spirit: ” 
“ This fellow doth not cast out devils but by Beelze-. 
bub the prince of the devils.’”* In reply, Jesus 
claimed that he “cast out devils by the Spirit of 
God,” and stigmatized their slanders as “ blasphemy 
against the Holy Ghost.” But.on another occasion, 


-. in that remarkable conversation with his disciples 


“just before his death, in which he claimed identity 
with the Father, he said, ‘The Father that dwell- 
eth in me, he doeth the works.” Nowhere does he 
attribute his miracles to ‘God the Son,” but to “the. 
Father” and to “the Holy Ghost;” thus clearly 
excluding any plurality or trinity in the divine nature. 
The plain and obvious inference is, that the Divine 


Being is absolutely and unqualifiedly ONE. 


1 Matt. xii. 24-32 ; Mk. iii. 2230. 2 Jn. xiv. Io. 


L248 Be 
- TENDENCY OF TRINITARIANISM. 


TT RINITARIANISM belittles, degrades, undei- 
fies the infinite God. While it. professedly: 
concedes infinity to each person of the Trinity, in 
reality it denies this infinity. The feeling that each 
is less than. infinite, is inseparable from the belief in - 
a trinity of divine persons, and the accompanying 
assignment of different divine offices and works and 
even attributes, to each. Each divine person is -fe/¢ 
to be less than infinite; and therefore, notwith-_ 
standing the theory, not The supreme God in all_his — 
pines which he must be or else not be God at - 
all. And if each or either is in any sense or in any 
degree less than infinite, if either cannot or does not 
perform all the works of divinity, the union of ‘them 
_ all cannot produce infinity, —cannot produce one in- 
finite God. 

To illustrate :— : 

Omnipresence and universal agency are really 
(though not always consciously) ascribed to God ° 
the Father alone: thus robbing. the Son and the 
Spirit of the ee vee, ascribed to them in 
theory. 
Again: the Holy Spirit, the so-called. “third 


TENDENCY OF TRINITARIANISM, 109 


person,” is considered: as’ being especially loly, as 
being entitled to that epithet in distinction trom the 
‘Father and the Son: thus-.detracting from their 
infinity of moral perfection. 

-Retributive justice is ascribed especially to the 
Father, and ‘mercy especially to the Son: as ex- 
pressed in the lines,— i 


“He sprinkled o’er the burning throne, 
And turned the wrath to grace.” 


The practice of addressing prayer to Christ, by _. 
those who hold the dogma in question, is generally 
attended with a most -bewildering confusion of his 
hacivitie and human natures and works. Sometimes 

“he is addressed as a man, sometimes as God. Asa 
man he is not to be worshiped; but only as God.. 
And as if-in anticipation of this very confusion, and 
- to prevent it, Christ directed his followers to pray 
only to..<’the Mathers” 

The simple truth of the rmaanincd unity. of the . 
_ Divine Spirit, is the antidote and the preventive of 

errors so derogatory to the character of the infinite 
God. 

It is worthy of remark in this connection, that 
the most positive Trinitarians are not always con- 
sistent with themselves. It has been observed, that 
when most in earnest in their preaching and in their 
prayers,—when. most full of devotional feeling,— 
they are very apt to forget their theory and. their 
set forms of expression, and to ascribe all divine 
prerogatives. and works directly either to God-the 


TiO) * %.  .¥BHOVAN FESS.” 


Father or to the Lord Jesus Christ ;—thus showing - 


that in the deep recesses of their hearts they do not - 
fully believe the theory they profess; that the only 
God that can satisfy their spiritual cravings is one 
competent to fulfill all their desires. 


XITI. 


SUMMARY. | 


‘E have seen, that the Holy Scriptures,—the . 
revelation that God has made of himself,— — 
plainly teach the absolute unqualified oneness of 
God: they teach that “‘ Jehovah our God i is one Je- 
hhovah,”** zoz¢ in any sense three. 

They teach that the*Lord <eSus Christ: is: * the 
beginning of the creation of God,’? “the only be- ° 
gotten Sox” of God.’ They teach that the Lord 
Jesus is zot ‘‘God the Son,” but that in his divine 
nature he is “ the Everlasting Father,” * the one in- 
- finite God in all his fullness. 
| They. teach that the poe Spirit is the same 
divine person. 

They teach that God he Father, God the Re 
demer, God the Sanctifier and Comforter, are one 
- and the same undivided and indivisible infinite God; 
that these are different names for the same divine ~ 
person, not in any sense three persons. 

To this agree the dictates of reason, and common 
sense. 

‘Paul ea eee Eee Ronans thus: “ That which 


oo 


! Deut. vi.-4. oo REVAL 24 * See note p. 23. 
Sr Site 1.18. * sa sisge 0; : 


Tigo - > YEHOVAIRFESUS. 


' may be known of God is manifest in [to] them; for 
God hath showed it unto them. ‘For the invisible 
‘things of him from the creation of the world are 
clearly seen, being understood by the things that 
are made, even his: eternal power and Godhead.” 
Do “ the things that are made” teach the doctrine 
of the Trinity? By-no means: they teach the ab- 


solute unity of God. One divine person is sufficient’ 


to accomplish all things possible : a being not com- 
petent to do this, is not God.. Then, God must be 
one, and only one. ~ 

‘The existence of more fe one cause for an ef- 
fect, when that one is competent to produce that 
effect, is unnecessary; and the Sea of such 
is illogical and absurd. 

If there is a divine person who is omnipresent, 
he cannot go to any place where he is not already 
present, neither can he send-another to any place 
where he is not himself present; so that so far as 
this attribute is concerned, there is no need of a 
plurality of divine persons. So with the attribute 


of power: one infinite divine person is fully com-_ 


petent to perform all that can be. accomplished 
by divinity, and the existence of another is un- 
necessary. : 

In short, the ene of. one infinite Seine ne- 
cessarily precludes the existence of another. infinite 
being : ¢wo infinite beings cannot co-exist. What- 
ever is done by infinite power, must necessarily be 
done by the one indivisible undivided God, a being 


1 Rom. i. -I9, 20. 


ee 


SUMMARY. . Pitas ay ais 


of absolute and unqualified unity. Fora being who 


*. does not accomplish a// the works of divinity, can- 


not be infinite, cannot be God at all.. The co- 
existence of three infinite beings is not only unneces- 
sary, but an absolute impossibility, an absurdity. 
‘The infinity of one must exclude the infinity of 
anothets,-l Were cayzorein: the yey nature of things, 
be more than one divine person. 

The only personal Trinity is comprehended in the 
LorpD JESUS CHRIST, who is the SUPREME GOD, 
the only pass SON OF Gop, and the my oF 
Man. 


It remains to notice some of the leading objec- 
tions that will be.offered to the views herein pre- _ 
sented and advocated, and to explain some of the 
_ texts especially relied upou to sustain the commonly 
received views. 


PVE 
OBJECTIONS. 


API HREE THAT BEAR RECORD.” — The seventh 

verse of the fifth.cliapter of the first epistle 
of John, has been considered by some as such a clear 
and positive assertion of the doctrine of the Trinity, 
that no argument from other Date of the Bible could 
. invalidate it. ; 

It is a fact well known, that.a part of-the Seventh 
verse and a part of the eighth, are not- found in the 
oldest. and best copies of the original Greek — the 
Sinaitic, the Alexandrian, and the Vatican manu-. 
scripts. An examination of the context will show, 
that the words not found in these copies, have no 
connection with what precedes and with what fol- 
lows, except a grammatical one: they break the logi- 
cal connection of the subject. The sixth, seventh, 
and eighth verses are as follows, the words in ques- 
tion being in brackets and italics :— 

“This is he that came by water and hee even 
Jesus Christ : not by. water only, but by water and 
blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, 
because the Spirit is truth. Forthere are three that 
bear record [zz heaven, the Father, the Word, and the 
floly Ghost - and these three are one. . And there are. 


SOB FECTIONS: EIS 


three that bear witness in earth,| the spirit, and the 
water, and the blood; and these three agree in 
OlGe. : 

-- This ry Cie2 characteristic of the divine 
essence, entirely.at variance with, and in direct con- 
tradiction to, all that is said elsewhere in the Scrip-— 
tures upon this subject,—is of itself sufficient to 
throw doubt.upon its authenticity. And when to 
this we add the evidence already presented, we are 
warranted in rejecting. it without hesitation. And 
many of the best Trinitarian critics do'so reject it. 

All other passages, that treat of the essential na- 
ture of the Divine Being, teach the unqualified unity . 
of that nature. The eyo other passages, (referred 
to in the pages immediately succeeding,) that are | 
supposed to teach the doctrine of the Trinity, were 
not spoken or written with any reference to the 
mode of the divine subsistence at all. . 

~It seems more probable that the words in ques- 
tion were interpolated about the time of the formal 
enunciation of the doctrine of the Trinity, by some 
of the early sects, than that they were written by 
the apostle in a position so Clearly atest 


The Formula of Baptism.— Go ye, ee and 
teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the 
Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. et 
This use of three names is claimed to be a proof of 
the doctrine of the Trinity. It was not spoken with 
any reference to. the divine nature; and it does not 


1 Matt. xxviii. Ig. 


116 | FEHOVAH-YESUS. 


necessarily signify anything more than this: “ God 
the Father, the Creator, the Ruler, the Provider, 

—God the Redeemer - and Savior, as manifested 
through: his Son,—God the Sanctifier and Com- 
forter ;—that. is, the one God in all his fullness, in all 

the aspects of his character relating to the’ salvation 
of sinful men.” 7 


“The Apostolic Benediction.” —One of the many 
salutations of the apostle Paul is claimed ‘to prove 
the doctrine of the Trinity. It is as follows::“ The 
grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, 
‘and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you 
all.” * The meaning here is like that of the passage — 
last mentioned. If the doctrine of the Frinity is. 
true, it is certainly remarkable that of the many 
““benedictions”’ in the New Testament, it should | 
be found in one only,—this being the only instance 
where the language is capable of such interpreta- 
tion. 

The use of three names here, and in the so-called — 
“Formula of Baptism,” no more proves a trinity in 
the divine essence, than do the five names given to 
the Lord Jesus Christ by Isaiah,’ prove a quintuple 
personality in him. Two or more names or titles of 
God are frequently used in successive clauses or texts, 
with no intention on the part of the writers to indi. 
cate a plurality in the divine essence. 

There. is no propriety in. styling this salutation 
“the Apostolic Benediction,” rather than any other 


1 2 OLS xia atk ite Al sana. 6, 


OBYECTIONS. siya 


of the many to be found in the epistles. - No. other 
apostle than Paul makes use of this language, and he 
uses it but once. The benediction or salutation he 
uses most frequently is substantially this: “ Grace 
be to you, and peace, from God the Father and our 
Lord Jesus Christ.”. This might with more propriety 
bé termed “‘ ¢Ze Apostolic Benediction.”.* ~~ 
, os ye , : . 

Intercession of the Spirit In the epistle to the’ 
Romans, we read, “The ‘Spirit itself maketh inter- 
cession for us with groanings that cannot be uttered.’” 
Does one divine person pray to another divine per- | 
- son? Does this passage teach any such absurdity ? 
- By no means. ‘An examination of the original, with 
a little common sense, will show that the meaning is 
simply this, — that God, .by his spiritual influence, 
aids us in our prayers, when without such aid we are | 
unable to express our feelings and our wants ;— or 
this, that when we are unable to express our desires, 
| toe is Deut with_us, nee and gg! us. 


ce Holy, holy, Hae): ” — The threefold repetition of 
- the word: “ holy,” in the ascriptions of praise by the 
seraphim,* and of the four living ones, * is thought 
by some to have reference to a trinity. of persons in 
the Godhead. “The ‘repetition is intensive, and the as 
- expression means oy “ Most holy.” : 


_ Elohim.— This is the Hebrew name of God most 


* See page 86, for references to some of the apostolic beénedictions, 
dL Romi wiig20g pees. oe Saawind: $ Rev: iv. Be 


Tiss, | ¥EHOVAH-YESUS. 


frequently used in the Old Testament, and is in the 
plural number. It is argued by some, that the use 
of the plural form indicates a plurality of person’ in 
the Godhead, the nature of which plurality is sup- 
posed to be revealed in the New Testament. Ifthe 
Son of God was “ the beginning of the creation of 
God,” as the Scriptures assert, then the proposition _ 
from God to the Son to create .other beings, would » 
justify the use of the words “Elohim” and “ us.” 
The use of the plural word here, no more proves 
‘the plurality of divine persons, than does. the 
expression “seven. spirits of God,” ' prove that there 
are seven divine spirits. Both these expressions may 
have reference to the manifold attributes of God. 
Besides: it isa common idiom of language for . 
persons in authority to speak of themselves in, the 
plural; and the Hebrews employed the plural form — 
of the name of God in the sense of the singular. . 
They never understood this to indicate anything but . 
absolute unity : they had no idea of plurality of per-. 
sons in the Godhead. The plural was used by them, 
in this as in other cases, intensively. lohim means . 
simply, the — supreme — God.’ Bas 
_ Again: if Elohim denotes plurality of divine per- 
sons, there is such: a plurality in the Son, for this 
‘term is applied to him as well as to the Father 


Christ's Prayers—It may be asked, How could 
Christ pray to the Father, if the divinity in him was | 
God the Father? Did he pray to himself? The 


A Reva, 4ane Ail T.  st ir? Ps, gel 36,y, 


OBYECTIONS. 119 


difficulty is not removed by the theory that the 
divinity in him was God the Son. It is the same if 
any divinity at all dwelt in him; for such divinity, 
by whatever name called, must possess all divine 
attributes and powers and prerogatives; and he 
did not need to go beyond himself for divine aid. 
He did not pray to himself: the man Jesus prayed 
to God. 

As long as God is infinite and we are finite, God 
will be to us a ‘mystery, and God in Christ will be a 
mystery. Finite minds will never comprehend the 
infinite. As long as this shall be so, it will be easy 
to ask difficult questions, And ow Christ is both 
God and man, is one of the difficult questions. If 
the evidence of the /fac¢ is sufficient, we are bound 
to accept it as truth, without fully comprehending 
it; as we constantly do in regard to many other 
subjects. Every finite being believes many things 
‘ to be truth which he does not understand. The 
man who pretends, as some do, to believe nothing 
he does not comprehend, is either willfully dishonest - 
or grossly ignorant of himself. | 


Lrinity Necessary:-— The necessity of a Trinity 
of divine persons in order to the work of redemption, 
is abundantly asserted, with but little attempt at 
proof. 

It was necessary to God’s glory, that his attri- 
butes should be exercised and exhibited. In order 
‘to the manifestation of his power, the work of ‘crea- 
tion was necessary. That his w7sdom might be ex- 


we 


120 -FEHOVAH-FESUS. 


hibited, there must be intelligent creatures to appre- 
ciate his works and his ways.. In order. to exhibit 
his Zoliness, his moral character and his law must be 
made known, and that to creatures having a knowl- 
edge of right and wrong, —a sénse of moral obliga- 
tion. To glorify his justice, there must be objects 
of justice. lo manifest his mercy, there must be 
subjects of mercy. In orderto all this, the existence 
of intelligent responsible creatures, and the plan and 
work of redemption, were necessary. 

In order to the fullest exhibition of God’s charac- 
ter and attributes, it was necessary that he should 
be manifested to his creatures. as God the Creator 
aid King, as God the Lawgiver and Judge, as God 
tie Father and Preserver, as-God the Savior and 
Redeemer, as God the Sanctifier and Comforter. 

But ‘it was or necessary in order to any of these 
ends, that there should be in the divine being any. 
numerical distinction of persons. Any such supposed 
distinction, ecessarily implies imperfection in the 
divine nature, imperfection in each of the separate 
personalities of the Godhead. If either of the so- 
called three persons of the Trinity cannot perform 
all the works of .divinity, then that one is less than 
infinite, and therefore not God. If either one is so 
competent, that one is absolutely infinite, and the 
existence of the others is unnecessary, and the sup- 
position of the existence of such, is unreasonable 
and absurd. 

Besides: if there must be a distinction of persons 
in the divine nature in order to the work of redemp- 


OBYECTIONS. 121 


tion, it is difficult to see why there is not a similar 
necessity for still further personal distinctions in re- 
gard to other works; and we cannot stop at three 
persons: the Divine Being must be, not a trinity, 
but a multiplicity. 


Divine Sonship necessary —Some who appear 
really to believe there is force in the argument, 
soberly claim that as Godis Father, and is unchange- 
able, he must always have been God the Father, and 
therefore there must always have been a Son; and if 
always, then he is God the Son. 

This argument, if it proves anything, proves too 
‘much. For example: God is the Creator; God is 
unchangeable; therefore he must always have been 
Creator; and the created universe must have existed 
from eternity... Again: God is the Redeemer; he is 
unchangeable; he must therefore always have been 
the Redeemer; and there must always have been per- 
sons subject to redemption ; and sinners have existed 
from eternity. : 

God, in all his attributes, is eternal; but he de- 
came Father, Creator, King, Judge, Redeemer, when 
he degan to exercise the attributes and prerogatives 
implied in these titles. 


The Pre-existence of Christ. —It will perhaps be 
urged against the views on this point herein main- 
‘tained, that if Christ was the first and the most ex- 
alted of created beings, —7¢he archangel, his created . 
soul could not have been a Auman soul, but must. 

Ae 


122 YEHOVAH-FESUS, 


have been of a higher order of being; and therefore 
he could not have been a’suitable being to make the 
atonement, as that would require that he should 
possess the “same nature as those for whom the 
atonement was made.: . 

To this it may be replied, that there is no evi- 
dence, scriptural or otherwise, of any essential dif- 
ference of constitution between the soul of an angel 
and that of a man: the only differences we know of 
or can conceive, between intelligent creatures, are 
those of moral character, of intellectual advance- 
ment, and of position. The archangel has the same 
intellectual powers and faculties as a man: the 
latter was made in the image of God, like God in 
the zature of these, though not in degree; and no 

higher essential nature could be given to the arch-. 
angel. .There are great differences of degree in the 
intellectual powers of men, but none in &zud ; and 
there may be a greater difference between the lowest 
man and the highest, than between the highest man 
and the lowest angel. The likeness necessary 
between Christ and man, was that of essential 
qualities, not of the degree of those qualities. He 
is in this latter respect far above the lowest man, far 
above the infant; he might as well be also far above 
the highest man, so long as not infinite. The 
objection, to have any force, must require all men to 
be precisely alike, and all to be-precisely like Christ, 
in their intellectual powers and attainments. 

Besides: the necessary qualifications of the Re- | 
deemer, as given by the apostle, are consistent with 


OBYECTIONS..: - 123 


the exalted character herein attributed to him. 
“Such a high priest became [was necessary for] 
us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from 
sinners, and made higher than the heavens.’’! No 
mere man could meet all these conditions. 

It may be also asked, How could obedience and 
resistance to temptation by such a being, be an ex- 
ample to us? Answer: Christ obeyed with the 
powers and faculties, and knowledge and experience, 
that he “ad: no more is required of us. Each 
_ created responsible being is required to love God with 
all the heart, with all the soul, with all the mind, with 
all the strength; that is, with all the powers he das, 
and no more,—whether they be more or less, whether 
he be archangel or infant. And just so far as any 
one, infant or angel, does this, he is an example to 
allothers. Christ is especially our example, because 
‘ he did this fully and perfectly, in human flesh. - 

‘This objection, like the last, to have any force, 
must require all human beings to be precisely alike, 
and to be precisely like Christ, in their powers and 
. attainments. 

Another possible objection may be indicated by 
the inquiry, If Christ was what is here claimed, he 
must have been preéminent in knowledge, above all 
other created beings: how then could he “increase 
in wisdom,” as is asserted of him? In his new posi- 
tion, as a child, ina human body, he could certainly 
increasein the knowledge of those things that neces- 
sarily pertained to that position. He must increase 


Heb; viis 26) 


124: GEHOVAH-FESUS., | 


in knowledge by experience, just as we do in regard 
to things we already believe to be true in view of 
satisfactory evidence. Besides, every created intelli- 
gence must increase in knowledge, as long as he 
exists: | 


Christian Consciousness. —1t is claimed that a 
trinity of divine persons is necessary to satisfy the 
spiritual needs of the Christian heart.’ Why a 
trinity? Why nota duality, or aquaternity? Why 
not a different divine person for each divine office ? 
It is a fair question, whether the influence of theo- 
logical training from childhood, may not be mistaken 
for intuitive perception or “‘ Christian consciousness.” 

The truth is, as already stated, that the Christian 
Trinitarian, when most devotional, often forgets his 
theory, and seems to find full satisfaction only in 
“God even the Father.” 

The hearts of many earnest Christians are not 
satisfied with a subordinate Saviorand a subordinate 
Sanctifier and Comforter. They want nothing less 
than an entire God in all his fullness in each of these 
relations. And such the Bible presents, as we have 
seen. 


“ The Fathers.’—Some will question the correct- 
ness of these views, because they are not-in accord- 
ance with the traditions handed down from “the 
fathers,” because they do not agree with “the stand- 
ards of the church.” 

We reply, that the writings of the Christian 


OBYECTIONS. + - | 125 


“fathers” of the early centuries after Christ, so far — 
as they have come down tous, do not contain any 
evidence that the early Christians held the “ doctrine 
of the Trinity.’”’ There is satisfactory evidence that 
they believed in the divinity of Christ, and worshiped 
him-as God.*, But the evidence is wanting, that 
they considered his divinity a distinct personality 
_ from God the Father. 

The so-called “ Athanasian Creed,” the earliest 
known formula containing the doctrine of a trinity 
of persons in the Godhead, is well understood not to 
have been the work. of Athanasius, but to have 
been written no earlier than the-fifth or sixth cen- 
‘tury,—long after the church had become corrupted 
with heathen philosophy, and rent by hostile sects.+ 

It isa fact well-known to students of church 
history, that the Christian church was at an early 
date disturbed by the commingling of the specula- 
tions of heathen philosophy with the doctrines of tie 
Bible, and that some of the early heresies and sects 
took their rise from this source. In fact. the New 
Testament itself furnishes evidence that this was so 
even in the days of the apostles. 

It is admitted by Trinitarian writers, that the 
- Trinitarian statement was of gradual growth. The 
entire church history of those early times, warrants 
the belief, that the Trinitarian dogma was likewise 


* See Liddon’s Bampton Lectures on the Divinity of Christ ; 
Lecture VII. 

+ A slight examination of the so-called “ Nicene Creed,” of earlier 
date than the “ Athanasian,” is sufficient to show that it is not Trini- 
tarian, though a Trinitarian can accept it. 


126. _ . YEHOVAH-FESUS. 


of gradual growth ;—that it was the result in part 
of attempts to reconcile Christianity with heathen 
philosophy,*—of opposition to Judaism,—of hostil- 
ity between opposing sects,—of the fear of seeming 
to deny the divinity of Christ,—of the assumption 
that the sending of the Spirit necessarily involved 
a plurality of divine persons. The interpolation in | 
the passage in John’s epistle, already referred to,t 
was no doubt made from similar motives. 

This dogma has been retained in the creeds of 
the church, from a superstitious regard for antiquity, 
for “the fathers,” for “the church,’—from dread of 
the charge of heresy, of heterodoxy, and of conse- 
quent obloquy and persecution,—from fear of being » 
called singular,— from indolence, and unwillingness 
to take the pains to investigate. | 

- Let us not, with too great a reverence for the 
opinions of men, be followers of those who “made 
the commandment of God of none effect by their. 
tradition... 


Other objections against the views herein main- 
tained, may perhaps be urged, with an appearance 
of plausibility. . But it is believed that their validity 
will be found to be in appearance only, not in fact. 


* Prof. Moses Stuart, in Biblical Repository, 1835 ; Review of 
Schleiermacher “On the Discrepancy between the Sabellian and 
Athanasian Method of representing the Doctrine of the Trinity.” 

Dr. K. R. Hagenbach, “ Text Book of the History of Doctrines,” 

W. G.T. Shedd, D. D., “ History of Christian Doctrine.” 

¢ See page 114. ~~) Matt. xv, 6; 


OB F¥ECTIONS. i249 


It is claimed that these views are in accordance 
with the extirve teachings of the word of God, when 
understood as writings intended for the instruction 
of men should be understood,—that is, according to 
their obvious meaning, allowing the Scripture to be 
its own interpreter. 

Let us then reverently and cordially accept God’s 
revealed truth on his own statement; being content 
to remain what we are,—finite beings, beings who 
cannot and will: not in all eternity comprehend the 
infinite God. 


OV 


CONCLUSION. 


ge author is fully a aware, that the views herein 

presented will be in some respects new and 
strange to many if not to most of those who will read 
what he has written; but the fact of novelty is no ar- 
gument against the ick of a proposition. As men 
progress in intellectual development and attain-— 
ments, truths not before known will be discovered, 
_and truths already partially seen will be better under- 
stood, in the department of religious investigation, 
as well isin others. \ Finite beings will find that there 
is something yet to learn, as long as eternity shall 
last. It is the duty of each, for himself, to seek to 
know what is truth,— to prove all things, and to hold 
fast that which is good, and right, and true, whatever 
may be the consequences. 

If the result of the. studies of the writer in the 
word of God, and of the presentation to the Christian 
public of some of his views of the truth therein 
taught, shall be that even a few will thereby be led 
to a more careful study of that word, and to an in- 
crease in the knowledge and love of it, and of its Au- 
‘thor as therein revealed, he will be content. He 
does not flatter himself that these views will be re- 


CON CEUSION. [29 


ceived by many, just at present, as the true teachings 

of the sacred Scriptures. Some will be deterred 
from embracing them, by the fear of being singular, 

and consequently pec in ‘thesxehureh: Some 
have a dread of anything new in the way of religious 

truth. Some feel under obligation, perhaps in some 
cases unconsciously to themselves, to accept the in- 
structions of their religious teachers,— preachers and 
commentators, — without question, taking it for 
eranted that their interpretations of Scripture must be 
correct. Others are too well satisfied with their pres- 
ent opinions and attainments, or are too indolent to 
examine for themselves, or are too much occupied 
with the pursuit of wealth or honor or fashion or 
pleasure, — even while professing to be the followers 
of Christ,—to search the Scriptures whether these 
things are so. 

Der curhel ees) it is believed that there are ‘“‘a few 
names,’ here and there, who earnestly desire and 
seek to know “ what is truth,” who will carefully and 
prayerfully compare these views with the Bible, and 
who will accept whatever is found to be in accord- 
ance with its teachings, even though not in con- 
formity with their own previous belief, or with the 
sentiments of their religious teachers; and even 
though this course may subject them to obloquy, 
and perhaps to the charge of heresy, and even to 
persecution. 

We ask the thoughtful, candid seeker after reli- 
gious truth, Do not the views of the uncreated and 
created natures of the Lord Jesus Christ, herein pre- 

6* ‘ ; 


130 FEHOVAH-YESUS. 


sented, tend to exalt him,—as God, and as the Son 
of God,—far above the positions he occupies in the 
estimation of Christians in general ? | 

Does it not greatly exalt the Lord Jesus in your 
estimation, to look upon him as the first and ereat- 
est of God’s creatures, and as the one only infinite 
God in all his fullness,—rather than to consider him 
as in his created nature a mere man, and in his 
divine nature a secondary or subordinate being ? 

Is it not more honorable to God, is it not more 
Satisfactory to the cravings of your spiritual nature, 
does it not give you more comfort, — to believe and 
to realize that your Redeemer and Savior, your 
Sanctifier and Comforter, possess “ a// the fullness 
' of the Godhead,” than to think that they are in any 
sense or in any degree inferior or subordinate di- 
vine personalities ;—that either of them is anything 
less than the “ONLY Lorp Gop,” the ONE-Gop 
and FATHER OF ALL, WHO IS ABOVE ALL, AND 
THROUGH ALL, AND IN YOU ALL’’? 


CONCLUSION. 131 


“FOR this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our 
Lord Jesus Christ, of whom the whole family in heaven and 
earth is named, that he would grant you, according to the rich- 
es of his glory, to be strengthened with fea by his Spirit in 
the inner man; that Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith; 
that ye, being rooted and grounded in love, may be able to com- 
prehend with all saints, what is the breadth, and length, and 
depth, and height ; and to know the love of Chtist which pass- 
eth knowledge, that ye might be filled with all the fullness of 
God. 

“ Now unto Him that is able to do exceeding abundantly 
above all that we ask or think, according to the power that 
worketh in us, unto Him be glory in the church by Christ 


Jesus, throughout all ages, world without end. AMEN,” 


APPENDIX A. 


TEXTS NOT CITED AS PROOF TEXTS, ON ACCOUNT OF DIF- 
FERENCES BETWEEN THE COMMON VERSION AND THE 
SINAITIC, VATICAN, AND ALEXANDRIAN MANUSCRIPTS. 


JOHN vi. 47. “He that believeth on me hath everlasting 
life’ The reading in two of the above-named copies, is as 
follows: ‘He that believeth hath everlasting life.” This 
excludes the passage from the category of szzgle texts that pre- 
sent Christ as the ultimate object of faith, and therefore divine. 


Yet he is so presented in the context, as well as elsewhere. 


ROMANS xiv. 10. “ We shall all stand before the judgment 
seat of Christ.’’ The correct reading probably is, “ the judg- 
ment seat of God.” If so, the text does not prove that Christ 
is to be the final judge, and so does not prove his divinity. Other 


passages, however, clearly teach his judgeship. 


EPHESIANS iii. 9. “God, who created all things by Jesus 
Christ.” The manuscripts referred to, omit the last three 
words. If their reading is correct, the passage does not prove 
that Christ was the instrument in the work of creation. This 


doctrine also is elsewhere plainly taught. 


PHILIPPIANS iv. 13. “I can do all things through Christ 


who strengtheneth me.” The above named copies read, 


134 APPENDIX A. 


“through him who strengtheneth me,” thus depriving the text 
of its force as a proof of Christ’s divinity. 


1 TIMOTHY iii. 16. ‘God was manifest in the flesh.”” The 
true reading probably is, ‘He who was manifest in the flesh.” 


The proof of the divinity of the Lord Jesus does not depend 
upon the above passages. Abundance.of other evidence has 
already been presented in the foregoing pages. 

Very few of the various readings of the old manuscripts are 
important, as affecting the proof of any of the great doctrines 
held by the Christian church. They are mostly slight verbal 
differences not essentially affecting the meaning, —such as 
might easily occur in copying manuscripts abounding in abbre- 
viations and contractions, which is the case with such ancient 
Greek writings as have come down to us. 


APPENDIX B. 


IT is claimed by able scholars, that the rules of the Greek 
language require that the. passages referred to below should be 
translated as here given: thus furnishing positive proof of the 
true deity of the Lord Jesus Christ.* The writings of the early 
Greek fathers show that such was’ the understanding of these 


passages in their day. 


EPHESIANS v. 5. “No whoremonger. . .. hath any in- 
heritance in the kingdom of Christ even of God.” | 


2 THESSALONIANS i. 12. “According to the grace of our 
God and Lord, Jesus Christ.” 


1 TIMOTHY Vv. 21. “I charge thee before the God and Lord, 
Jesus Christ:”’ or, according to the Sinaitic and Alexandrian 


versions, ‘‘ before Jesus, the God and Christ.” 


2 TIMOTHY iv. 1. “I charge thee therefore before the God 
and Lord, Jesus Christ: or, according to the. Sinaitic and 


Alexandrian versions, ‘‘ before God, even Christ Jesus.” ~ 


*% See “Uses: of the Definitive Article in the Greek Text of the 
New Testament.” By Granville Sharp. First American Edition. - 
Philadelphia : 1807. 7 

Also, Bloomfield’s Greek Testament. 


136 APPENDIX B. 


TITUS ii. 13. “ Expecting the. blessed hope, even the ap- 
pearance of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus 
Ciinistc 


2 PETERi. 1. “ Through the righteousness of our God and 


Savior, Jesus Christ.” 


JUDE 4. “ Denying our only Master, God, and Lord, Jesus 
Christ ;”’ or, our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ ;” the 
word “ God ”’ not being found in the Sinaitic, Alexandrian and 
Vatican MSS. , | 


+ Already quoted. See p. 43. 


TEXTS QUOTED OR REFERRED TO. 


[Figures in Parentheses refer to pages. ] 


GENESIS iii. 8 (66); 15 (27); vi. 6 (80); xi. 5 (80) ; xvi. 7-13 (67) ; 
Xviii. (67); 20, 21 (80); xxil. 12, 16 (67); xxxii, 24-30 (67); xli. 
38 (77). 


Exopus iii. 14 (35); xxiii. 20 (68); xxiv. 10, II (67) 3 Kxvili. 3 


, 


C77 REIS (78) ; Xxxil. 14 (SL) Soot E (67). 


Numpers xi. 29 (76); xii. 6, 8 (68); xiv. 34 (81); xxii. 9 (81); 
- 22, 32, 38, 38 (68); xxiv. 2 (76). 


DEUTERONOMY iv. 35, 39 (21); vi 4 (21, EIT) + xviii, 15 (27); 
xxix. 29 (9); xxxii. 39 (21) ; xxxill. 2 (81); xxxiv. 5, 6 (70); 10 (67). 


JosHUA v. 13-15 (68) ; vi. 2-5 (68). 
Juvaes ii. 1 (68) ; vi. TI-24 (68) ; xiii. (69), 
2 CHRONICLES xv. r (76). | 

JoB xxxiv. 21 (80). 


PSALMS ii. T2 (32); vii. 12 (80); xi. 4 (80); xxix. 4 (80); xlv. 6 
(32); 6, 7: (69, 118); li. 11 (76); civ. 3 (80). 


ISAIAH vi. 3 (117); vii. 14 (42)3 viii. 20 (8); ix. 6 (27, 32, 42, 49, 
70, III; 116); xi. 2, 3 (29); xxxii. 15 (76) ;. xlii. 1 (76); xliv. 3 (76) ; 
6, 8 (21) ; xlv. 5 (21); liii. 3 (29) ; Ixi. 1 (76). 


JEREMIAH xxiii. 5 (27); 5, 6 (33)% xxxiit. £7 (80). 


EZEKIEL xi. 19 (78); xxxvi. 27 (76). 


138  YEHOVAH-FYESUS. 


DANIEL iii. 25, 28 (69) ; x. 13, 21 (70); xii. I (70). 
JOEL ii. 28 (76). 


‘MICAH Vv. 2 (33). 
ZEPHANIAH ili. 17 (80). 


MATTHEW i. I (27, 70); 20 (106); 21 (43); 23 (42); iii. 11 (76); 
iv. 1 (29, 74); 19 (37, 38); v.18, 20, 22, 26, 28, 32,34, 39, 44 (38); 
vi. 6, 9 (50); 9 (96); vii. 28, 29 (44) ; viii. 2, 3 (37, 40); 22 (38); ix. 
2 (37); 4 (45); 9 (38); 18, 19 (40) ; x. t (45); 32, 33 (34); 37-39 (39); 
xi. 25 (97); 27 (34, 94); 28: (37); xii. 24~32 (107); 31 (74); xiv. 23 
(28) ; 32, 33 (40); xv. 6 (126); 25 (40); xvi. 17 (99); 27 (51); xvii. 
14, 15 (40); 27 (35); xviii. 20 (33); xx. 20 (40); xxi. I-3 (35) ; xxii. 
45 (69) ; xxill. Io (39); xxv. 31-46 (36); xxvi. 39 (28); xxviii.‘9, 17 
(40); 18 (34); 19 (115); 20 (33). 


MARK il. 8 (45); iii. 22-30 (107); iv. 39 (37); viii. 38 (34) ; xii. 
32 (22) ; 36 (76); xiii. 32 (28, 51, 94); xiv. 36 (97). Si 

LUKE i. 15 (76); 35 (106) ; ii. 26 (74); 27 (76); ‘49, 51 (28); 52 
(28, 29); iv. 14 (29) ; 18, 19 (106) ;- 35 (37); vi. 12 (28); vii. 48 (37) ; 
ix. 47 (45); xX. 21 (100); xi. 13 (76); xii. 12 (74); xxii. 42 (97): xxiii. 
34, 46 (97); xxiv. 52 (40). 


JOHN i. I, 2 (63); 1-3 (65, 69); 3 (44); 14 (64, 70) ; 18 (67, 111); 
43 (38); il. 19 (33); 24, 25 (45); ili. 13 (62, 65); 31 (58); 34 (76); 
Iv. 10, 14 (33) ; 17,18 (34, 45); 23 (96) ; v. 17 (35); 21 (34); 22 (36); 
23 (35, 106); 25 (34) ; 27 (36); 28, 29 (34) ; 30 (28, 51); 36 (28, 52); 
39 (8);.42 (35); vi. 15 (45); 38 (62, 70); 40, 47, 48, 54 (40); 44 
(94, 101); 47 (132); 57 (28, 52); 61 (45); 62 (62, 65); 64 (45)3 Vii. 
39 (82) ; vill. 12 (39); 29 (28); 51 (39, 40), 58 (35); ix. 38 (40); x. 
15 (35); 17, 18 (33); 27, 28 (40); 30 (35,.52); 38 (35, 52, 105); xi. 
25, 26 (40); 43 (37); xii. 27, 28 (97); 44 (52); 45 (35); 49 (28,53); 
xill. 3 (55); 11 (45); xiv. (82); 1, 6 (39); 7-11 (54); 9 (35); To (52, 
107); 10, II (105); II (35); 13, 14 (34); 15 (39); 18 (38); 19 (40); 
20 (103, 104) ; 24 (53); 28 (28, 53); xv. (82); 4 (£03, 104): 4,5, 7 
(38) ; 14 (39); 16 (50); xvi. 8, 9 (39); 23 (80,97); 30 (45) ; 32 (53); 
xvil. (97); I (1OI); 1,2 (40,54); 1,3 (94); 3 (22); 4 (28); 5 (63, 


TEXTS QUOTED OR REFERRED TO: 139 
70); If, 17 (LOL); 21 (104) ; 24 (63) ; xx. 22 (76); 28, 29 (41); 37 
(56) 5 Rx £7 (45): 


Acts ii: 4 (76); 30 (64); 32, 33 (45); iv. 24-30 (97); v-. 3.74); 
vi. 3 (78); vii. 37, 38 (67) 3.59 (46); vill. 17 (76, 78); x. 19 (74); 25, 
26 (41); 36 (42); 38 (29, 77) + xiii. 2 (75); X1v. TI-18 (41) ; XVily 11 
(61, 73); 22-31 (95); Xx. 27 (95) 5 XX. IT (75); xxiv. 14 (10). 

Romans i. 3 (64); 7 (47, 86); 19, 20 (112) ; viii. 9 (78); 10 (103) ; 
1g (78); 26 (£47); ix. 5 (42, 64); xiv. 10 (132); 12 (9); xv. © (93); 
13, 16 (75). 

+ CORINTHIANS i. 3 (47, 86); 4, 5 (100); 7, 8 (Zo2)s 24 (44)5 30 
(102) ; ii. 11 (94); 12 (78); 13 (75); iii. 16 (103); vi. 19 (103) ; vill. 


4-6 (89); 6 (22, 44,65, 86, 96) ; x. 4 (68); xi I (39) ; xv. 28 (29, 56) ; 
xvi, 23 (88). 


2 CorINTHIANS i. 2 (47, 86); 3 (93); 34 (102) ; iii. 16-18 (95) 3 
v. Tg (56, QI, 105); vi. 6 (78) ; 16-18 (103) ; xi. 31 (93) ; Xill. 5 (103) ; 
14 (116). 

GALATIANS i. 1 (86); 3 (47, 86); 4 (93); 12, 15, 16 (100); il. 20 
(48, 103); iv. 4 (29); 6 (78); vi. 18 (88). 

EPHESIANS i, 2 (86): 3 (93); 3: 4 (ZO); 17 (93) 100)5 iti, 9 (132)3 
14 (97); 14-21 (131); TI-19 (104); iv. 6 (103); 10, IF (100) ; v. 5 
(134); 20 (92); vi. 23 (86). 

PHILIPPIANS i. 2 (86); ii. 9-11 (46, 57) 3 lit, 20,2 (44) ; iv. 13 
(132); 20 (93). 

CoLossIANs i. 2 (86); 12,13 (TOL); 13-19 (66); 15 (60); 16, 17 
(48); 18 (60); 19 (57); 28-27 (90); ii. 1-3 (91); 2 (87); 8,9 (57) 5 
9, 10 (43, 91); iii. 17 (93, 97): ; 

I T HESSALONIANS i. 1 (86); 3 (93); iii. 11 (46, 87, 93); 13 (93); 
iv 8°(77).; v- 2108): 

2 THESSALONIANS i. I (87); 2 (86) ; 12 (134); ii. 16 (93) ;- 16, 
17 (45, 102). 

1 Timotuy i. 1 (87); 2 (86); 12 (44); 17 (22); ii. 5 (22, 30, 92, 
gs); iii, 16 (433); iv. 1 (75)5 v. 21 (87, 134)5 Vi 14-16 (44, 58, 95.) 


140 FEHOVAH-FESUS. 
2 TIMOTHY i. 2 (86); 6 (78); iv. 1 (87, 134). 
TITUS i. 4 (86); ii. 13 (43, 135); 13, 14 (102). 
PHILEMON 3 (86). } 


HEBREWS i. (66); 1, 2 (29, 60, 66, TOO) ; 3 (44); 5 (60) ; 6 (46) ; 


8 (43); ti. 9 (63); 14 (64); 17 (30); 18 (29); iii. 7, 8 (75); iv. 15 (20), 
v. 9 (45); vii. 26 (123); xii. 22-24 (87); xiii. 8 (44). 
JAMES 1. 17, 18 (IOI); 27 (93) ; ii. Ig (22); iii. 9 (93) 
I PETER i, 3 (93, TOI); 12 (77); ii. 23 (29); iv. 14 (77). 


2 PETER i. I (135); 21 (75). 


I JOHN i. 3 (87); ii. 22, 23, 24 (87); iii, 8 (6s); 24 (79); iv. 9 
(62); 12, 13, 15, 16 (104); 13 (79); v. 7, 8 (114); 20 (43, 46). 


2 JOHN 3 (86); 9 (87). 
JUDE 1 (88); 4 (135); 9 (69); 21 (46). 


REVELATION i, I (100) ; 4 (118); 5, 6 (46); 6 (93); 8, 18 (43); 18 
(47, 100); ii. 2, 5, 9, 10 (47); 11 (100); 13 (47): 17 (47, 100); ime) 
(47) ; 23 (45, 47); 26 (47); 29 (100); iii. 1 (47, 118); 5, 7-10, 12 (47) ; 
14 (61, 111); 15, 21 (47); iv. 8 (117); v. 13 (40) 0-50-7170) Xvi. 
14 (43); xix. 10 (41); xx. 6 (47); xxii. 8, 9 (41). 


se 7 
ae 


say Ok cdl 


DATE DUE 


PRINTEDINU.S.A. 


GAYLORD 


Cl (WW "”’"°>°>Pwg 0 a ccc 


MMMM SO 


MMM OW} 


8 . . . 

MAA GAAS 

= & or 

\ STRAKS RAQYAS S YX 

RAVES ARS ARR BVy 
ry 


\ 


minary-Speer Librar 


TT 


\\ 


RQ 
GK 
AN SN 
WV RAY 
ASN ~ 


SASRaASARASSARAN NN 


